Xian Lin Chen v. Holder

420 F. App'x 747
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 10, 2011
Docket07-74510
StatusUnpublished

This text of 420 F. App'x 747 (Xian Lin Chen v. Holder) 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
Xian Lin Chen v. Holder, 420 F. App'x 747 (9th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Xian Lin Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions 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 denial of a motion to reopen, Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Chen’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed nearly four years after the BIA’s December 19, 2002, order dismissing the underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Chen failed to show changed circumstances in China in order to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline, see id. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h); Lin, 588 F.3d at 988-89 (record did not show material change in enforcement of family planning laws sufficient to establish changed country conditions and excuse an untimely motion to reopen). Contrary to Chen’s contention, the BIA considered the evidence she submitted and applied the correct prima facie eligibility requirement. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008).

Chen’s contention that she should have been permitted to file a successive asylum application under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) is foreclosed by Chen v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th Cir.2008) (an alien subject to a final removal order may only reapply for asylum through a successful motion to reopen).

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

Related

Qing Li Chen v. Mukasey
524 F.3d 1028 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Feng Gui Lin v. Holder
588 F.3d 981 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Toufighi v. Mukasey
538 F.3d 988 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
420 F. App'x 747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/xian-lin-chen-v-holder-ca9-2011.