Changming Ma v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Changming Ma v. Mukasey

269 F. App'x 735

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 12, 2008

DocketNo. 06-72805

StatusPublished

This text of 269 F. App'x 735 (Changming Ma v. Mukasey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Changming Ma v. Mukasey, 269 F. App'x 735 (9th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Changming Ma, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ma’s motion to reopen to reissue its earlier decision. The presumption that the BIA mailed its decision to Ma at his address of record on March 1, 2005, as indicated on the BIA’s cover letter accompanying its decision, was not rebutted where Ma did not submit any evidence to the contrary. See Singh, v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1170, 1172-73 (9th Cir.2007). The record before us does not indicate that Ma submitted the required change of address form to the agency and the BIA was alerted to Ma’s new address only after Ma filed his motion to reopen in April 2006.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Changming Ma, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir.2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ma’s motion to reopen to reissue its earlier decision. The presumption that the BIA mailed its decision to Ma at his address of record on March 1, 2005, as indicated on the BIA’s cover letter accompanying its decision, was not rebutted where Ma did not submit any evidence to the contrary. See Singh, v. Gonzales, 494 F.3d 1170, 1172-73 (9th Cir.2007). The record before us does not indicate that Ma submitted the required change of address form to the agency and the BIA was alerted to Ma’s new address only after Ma filed his motion to reopen in April 2006.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 F. App'x 735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/changming-ma-v-mukasey-ca9-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack