Feng Lan Li v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Feng Lan Li v. Loretta E. Lynch

637 F. App'x 448

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 1, 2016

Docket11-71930

StatusUnpublished

This text of 637 F. App'x 448 (Feng Lan Li v. Loretta E. Lynch) 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

Feng Lan Li v. Loretta E. Lynch, 637 F. App'x 448 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Feng Lan Li, a 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. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Li’s motion to reopen because it was filed more than five years after her order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Li failed to present material evidence of changed circumstances in China to qualify for a regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Lin, 588 F.3d at 989 (agency’s determination that petitioner did not establish material changed country conditions was not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”).

We do not reach challenges Li raises to the agency’s original decision because they were addressed by this court in Li v. Holder, 316 Fed.Appx. 689 (9th Cir.2009).

The 90-day stay of proceedings granted on September 23, 2015, has expired. Respondent’s motion to lift the stay is denied as moot.

PETITION FOR 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 **

Feng Lan Li, a 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. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir.2009). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Li’s motion to reopen because it was filed more than five years after her order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Li failed to present material evidence of changed circumstances in China to qualify for a regulatory exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Lin, 588 F.3d at 989 (agency’s determination that petitioner did not establish material changed country conditions was not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”).

We do not reach challenges Li raises to the agency’s original decision because they were addressed by this court in Li v. Holder, 316 Fed.Appx. 689 (9th Cir.2009).

The 90-day stay of proceedings granted on September 23, 2015, has expired. Respondent’s motion to lift the stay is denied as moot.

PETITION FOR 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)

637 F. App'x 448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feng-lan-li-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack