Shaoqing Chen v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAOQING CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-72345
Agency No. A088-113-526
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Shaoqing Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d
* 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
DEC 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-72345
575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We review de novo questions of law. Bhattarai v.
Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen’s motion to reopen as
untimely and number-barred, where it was his fourth such motion, it was filed over
nine years after his final order of removal, and he failed to show he qualifies for
any exception to the filing deadline. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2)-(3).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination not to reopen
proceedings sua sponte where Chen does not raise a colorable legal or
constitutional error to invoke our jurisdiction. See Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588
(“[T]his court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte
reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions
for legal or constitutional error.”).
Chen’s contentions that the BIA did not sufficiently explain its decision,
applied an incorrect standard, or otherwise erred in its analysis of his motion fail as
unsupported by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.
2010) (the BIA does not have to write an exegesis on every contention).
We lack jurisdiction to address Chen’s contentions concerning his prior
motions to reopen where he failed to file timely petitions for review of those

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-72345
decisions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (providing that petition for review must be
filed within 30 days of final order of removal); see also Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d
1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003) (30-day deadline is “mandatory and jurisdictional”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --