The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
12-73457•Changguo Yu v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General
12-73457Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJun 16, 2014
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHANGGUO YU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73457
Agency No. A096-057-944
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Changguo Yu, 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 discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
FILED
JUN 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
-- 1 of 2 --
F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review. The
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Yu’s second
motion to reopen because the motion was filed nine years after his final order of
removal, see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(3)(i), 1003.23(b)(4)(iii)(A) (an alien has 180
days to file a motion to reopen to rescind an in absentia order if the alien can show
that she failed to appear for the hearing due to exceptional circumstances), and Yu
failed to demonstrate the due diligence necessary for equitable tolling, see Avagyan
v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011), or establish materially changed
country conditions so as to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time
limitations for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597
F.3d at 987 (new evidence “must be ‘qualitatively different’ from the evidence
presented at the previous hearing”).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Yu’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-73457 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.