Su Ing Zheng v. Mukasey

Ninth Circuit

Su Ing Zheng v. Mukasey

309 F. App'x 138

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 20, 2009

DocketNo. 05-70328

StatusPublished

This text of 309 F. App'x 138 (Su Ing Zheng 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

Su Ing Zheng v. Mukasey, 309 F. App'x 138 (9th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Su Ing Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her second motion to reopen removal proceedings in which Zheng sought to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture, following the underlying denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F. 3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zheng’s second motion to reopen as numerically barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), where Zheng failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in China to qualify her for he regulatory exception to the numerical bar for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. [139]*139§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Hamoui v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 821, 826 (9th Cir.2004).

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

**

Su Ing Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her second motion to reopen removal proceedings in which Zheng sought to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture, following the underlying denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F. 3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008), and we deny the petition.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zheng’s second motion to reopen as numerically barred, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), where Zheng failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in China to qualify her for he regulatory exception to the numerical bar for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. [139]*139§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Hamoui v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 821, 826 (9th Cir.2004).

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)

309 F. App'x 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/su-ing-zheng-v-mukasey-ca9-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack