Yuzhen Yang v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YUZHEN YANG,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72968
Agency No. A206-529-176
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Yuzhen Yang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen
removal proceedings and to reissue its decision denying her appeal from an
immigration judge’s final order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 12 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-72968
Hernandez-Velasquez v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in
part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to reopen and reissue its
prior February 16, 2016, order, where Yang concedes the motion was filed more
than 90 days after her final order of removal, she did not claim any exception to the
filing deadline, and the BIA properly sent the prior order to the last address she
provided and to her attorney. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); 8 U.S.C. § 1229(c)
(service by mail is sufficient if there is proof of attempted delivery to the last
address provided by the alien); Al Mutarreb v. Holder, 561 F.3d 1023, 1028 n.6
(9th Cir. 2009) (service of a hearing notice on an alien’s counsel may be a
sufficient means of providing notice of the time and location of removal
proceedings).
To the extent Yang contends the BIA should have reopened her case under
its sua sponte authority, we lack jurisdiction to consider this contention. See Mejia-
Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th Cir. 2011); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch,
840 F.3d 575, 588-89 (9th Cir. 2016).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Yang’s contentions challenging the BIA’s
February 16, 2016, order denying her claims for relief because this petition is not

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-72968
timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition for review must be
filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of removal.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --