Jun Zeng v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Jun Zeng v. Mukasey

310 F. App'x 85

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 21, 2009

DocketNo. 08-70329

StatusPublished

This text of 310 F. App'x 85 (Jun Zeng 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

Jun Zeng v. Mukasey, 310 F. App'x 85 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Jun Zeng, 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 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zeng’s motion to reopen because it was untimely and Zeng failed to present evidence of changed circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (“The critical question is ... whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.”).

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

**

Jun Zeng, 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 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 782 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zeng’s motion to reopen because it was untimely and Zeng failed to present evidence of changed circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); see also Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir.2004) (“The critical question is ... whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.”).

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)

310 F. App'x 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jun-zeng-v-mukasey-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack