Haiyi Yan, a.k.a. Hai Yi Yan v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAIYI YAN, a.k.a. Hai Yi Yan,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71932
Agency No. A098-210-586
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Haiyi Yan, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
NOV 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71932 2
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988,
992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Yan’s motion to reopen as
untimely, where the motion was filed three years after the BIA’s final order, see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Yan failed to present sufficient evidence of changed
circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for
filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-
97 (evidence was immaterial in light of prior adverse credibility determination).
We lack jurisdiction over any challenge Yan makes to the agency’s
underlying adverse credibility determination because this petition for review is not
timely as to the agency’s order finding him not credible. See Toufighi, 538 F.3d at
995.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --