Huayu Yan v. Eric Holder, Jr.

592 F. App'x 598
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 5, 2015
Docket11-72623
StatusUnpublished

This text of 592 F. App'x 598 (Huayu Yan v. Eric Holder, Jr.) 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
Huayu Yan v. Eric Holder, Jr., 592 F. App'x 598 (9th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Huayu Yan petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in holding that Yan did not meet her burden of providing evidence establishing a material change in circumstances in her native China. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the evidence presented by Yan in her motion to reopen was not qualitatively different from the evidence presented in her initial asylum petition. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987-91 (9th Cir.2010); cf. Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945-46 (9th Cir.2004). Because Yan failed to show changed country conditions, her motion to reopen does not qualify for an exception from time and number limits. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i)-(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Yan’s motion to reopen.

PETITION 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

Related

Najmabadi v. Holder
597 F.3d 983 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
592 F. App'x 598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huayu-yan-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2015.