Jun Li v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Jun Li v. Loretta E. Lynch

621 F. App'x 445

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 26, 2015

Docket12-73113

StatusUnpublished

This text of 621 F. App'x 445 (Jun 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

Jun Li v. Loretta E. Lynch, 621 F. App'x 445 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jun Fu Li petitions for review from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part.

1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Li’s concededly untimely motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). The BIA properly determined that Li’s failure to file a new asylum application was fatal to his motion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (“A motion to reopen proceedings for the purpose of submitting an application for relief must be accompanied by the appropriate application for relief and all supporting documentation.”); see also Young Sun Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir.2008) (affirming BIA’s denial of motion to reopen because petitioner failed to present evidence of an approved visa as required, to establish “prima facie eligibility for the relief sought”).

2. We lack jurisdiction to consider Li’s challenge to the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen removal proceedings. Sharma v. Holder, 633 F.3d 865, 874 (9th Cir.2011).

PETITION DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.

**

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 **

Jun Fu Li petitions for review from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We deny the petition in part and dismiss it in part.

1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Li’s concededly untimely motion to reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). The BIA properly determined that Li’s failure to file a new asylum application was fatal to his motion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1) (“A motion to reopen proceedings for the purpose of submitting an application for relief must be accompanied by the appropriate application for relief and all supporting documentation.”); see also Young Sun Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir.2008) (affirming BIA’s denial of motion to reopen because petitioner failed to present evidence of an approved visa as required, to establish “prima facie eligibility for the relief sought”).

2. We lack jurisdiction to consider Li’s challenge to the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen removal proceedings. Sharma v. Holder, 633 F.3d 865, 874 (9th Cir.2011).

PETITION DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.

**

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)

621 F. App'x 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jun-li-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack