Case Name: ZHI QIN HONG, a.k.a. Miss Sala Klomkliang, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-19
Citations: 388 F. App'x 649
Docket Number: No. 07-74232
Parties: ZHI QIN HONG, a.k.a. Miss Sala Klomkliang, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 388
Pages: 649–650

Head Matter:
ZHI QIN HONG, a.k.a. Miss Sala Klomkliang, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74232.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 19, 2010.
Dehai Zhang, Esquire, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
U.S. Department of Justice, Rebecca Ariel Hoffberg, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Jocelyn M. Lopez-Wright, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los An-geles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Zhi Qin Hong, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Hong's motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed eight years after the BIA's final administrative decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Hong failed to establish changed circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (evidence must demonstrate prima facie eligibility for relief in order to reopen proceedings based on changed country conditions).
Hong's contention that the BIA failed to consider the evidence submitted with the motion to reopen fails, because she has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006).
Hong's contentions that the BIA applied improper standards of law in denying her motion to reopen are belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.