Case Name: Hongwei WU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-13
Citations: 162 F. App'x 777
Docket Number: No. 04-72480
Parties: Hongwei WU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HUG, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 162
Pages: 777–777

Head Matter:
Hongwei WU, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-72480.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 9, 2006.
Decided Jan. 13, 2006.
Vargas & Associates, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HUG, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Hongwei Wu, a native and citizen of the People's Republic of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying his asylum application after he was ordered deported in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition for review.
The IJ did not abuse her discretion in denying Wu's second motion to reopen as numerically barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A); Fajardo v. INS, 300 F.3d 1018, 1020 (9th Cir.2002) (noting that the single motion to reopen limitation applies to motions to rescind an in absentia order of removal).
To the extent Wu challenges the IJ's order denying Wu's first motion to reopen, we lack jurisdiction to consider it because Wu failed to challenge that order before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.