Court Opinion

ID: 9396155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-19 18:01:29.904568+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:14.408030
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 19 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

XIUQIN YAN,                                     No.    20-71630

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A200-781-003

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                               Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before:      BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Xiuqin Yan, native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen

removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review

for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Bonilla v. Lynch,

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition

for review.

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Yan’s motion to reopen as

untimely where it was filed more than three years after the final removal order, and

Yan has not established that any statutory or regulatory exception applies. See

8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of

the final removal order); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (listing exceptions).

      Our jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen sua sponte

is limited to determining whether the BIA based its decision on legal or

constitutional error. See Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 581-82. Yan has not shown any legal

error underlying the BIA’s determination that she is ineligible for any benefits

under the Immigration and Nationality Act, including adjustment of status, where

she was found to have filed a frivolous application for asylum. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1158(d)(6); see also Manhani v. Barr, 942 F.3d 1176, 1178 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[A]

determination that an applicant filed a frivolous asylum application renders the

applicant permanently ineligible for immigration relief.”) (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted). We lack jurisdiction to consider Yan’s remaining

contentions as to the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening. See Bonilla, 840 F.3d

at 588.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                          2                                    20-71630