Zhih Wu v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Zhih Wu v. Loretta E. Lynch

644 F. App'x 712

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 3, 2016

Docket11-71879

StatusUnpublished

This text of 644 F. App'x 712 (Zhih Wu 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

Zhih Wu v. Loretta E. Lynch, 644 F. App'x 712 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Zhih Hua Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2007). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Wu’s third motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred because the motion was filed over seventeen years late, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limits for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 988-89 (9th Cir.2009) (the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying an untimely motion to reopen where the record did not establish change in family planning laws or enforcement of such laws); He, 501 F.3d at 1132 (change in personal circumstances does not establish changed circumstances in country of origin). We reject Wu’s contentions that the BIA failed to fully consider evidence he submitted with his motion and that the BIA’s analysis was deficient. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.2010) (BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).

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 **

Zhih Hua Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2007). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Wu’s third motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred because the motion was filed over seventeen years late, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and he failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and number limits for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 988-89 (9th Cir.2009) (the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying an untimely motion to reopen where the record did not establish change in family planning laws or enforcement of such laws); He, 501 F.3d at 1132 (change in personal circumstances does not establish changed circumstances in country of origin). We reject Wu’s contentions that the BIA failed to fully consider evidence he submitted with his motion and that the BIA’s analysis was deficient. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.2010) (BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).

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)

644 F. App'x 712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zhih-wu-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack