Case Name: SU ING ZHENG, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-01-20
Citations: 309 F. App'x 138
Docket Number: No. 05-70328
Parties: SU ING ZHENG, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 309
Pages: 138–139

Head Matter:
SU ING ZHENG, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70328.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2009.
Filed Jan. 20, 2009.
Jisheng Li, Law Office of Jisheng Li, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
HI-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Honolulu, HI, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer Parker Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Erika Ritt, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Su Ing Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her second motion to reopen removal proceedings in which Zheng sought to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture, following the underlying denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F. 3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zheng's second motion to reopen as numerically barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), where Zheng failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in China to qualify her for he regulatory exception to the numerical bar for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Hamoui v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 821, 826 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.