Si Jie Liu v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SI JIE LIU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73345
Agency No. A073-399-750
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 22, 2014**
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Si Jie Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen proceedings.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, and de novo claims of ineffective assistance of
FILED
JUL 30 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 --

counsel. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny
the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Liu’s motion to reopen
based on ineffective assistance of counsel, where Liu claimed in her motion that
she had been forced to have an abortion in China, but she testified at her merits
hearing that she did not have a forced abortion. See Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d
1013, 1023 (9th Cir. 2004) (requiring prejudice to succeed in claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel).
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Liu’s untimely motion
to reopen because the motion was filed more than thirteen years after the BIA’s
final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and the BIA reasonably determined that
Liu did not qualify for the changed circumstances exception to the time limit
because she failed to demonstrate that any alleged change in China’s family
planning policy or practice was material to her claim, see 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) (evidence must be material); Almaraz v. Holder, 608 F.3d 638,
641 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner failed to show that change was material to his
claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-73345 2

-- 2 of 2 --