AIZHANG LI, AKA Ai Zhang Li v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AIZHANG LI, AKA Ai Zhang Li,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
Nos. 18-70174
18-71759
Agency No. A206-195-074
MEMORANDUM*
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Aizhang Li, a native and citizen
of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) decisions denying his motion to reopen and reissue its August 23, 2017,
decision (petition No. 18-70174) and denying his subsequent motion to reconsider
* 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
FEB 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-71759
(petition No. 18-71759). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen and reissue.
Hernandez-Velasquez v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir. 2010). We review
de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for abuse of discretion the
denial of a motion to reconsider. Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1229 (9th Cir.
2020). In 18-70174, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. In
18-71759, we deny the petition for review.
As to petition No. 18-70174, the BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate
Li’s due process rights in declining to reissue its decision, where the BIA
considered the evidence and arguments in concluding that the circumstances were
inadequate to warrant reissuing. See Singh v. Napolitano, 649 F.3d 899, 901 (9th
Cir. 2011) (BIA has reissued decisions where petitioner has shown lack of notice
due to administrative error or ineffective assistance of counsel); see also
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an
exegesis on every contention); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(petitioner must demonstrate error to prevail on a due process challenge).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Li’s contentions regarding the BIA’s denial
of sua sponte reopening. See Lona, 958 F.3d at 1227 (denial of sua sponte
reopening is committed to agency discretion and unreviewable).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-71759
As to petition No. 18-71759, the BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate
Li’s due process rights in denying Li’s motion to reconsider where he failed to
identify any error of law or fact in the BIA’s prior decision. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(b)(1); Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A petitioner’s
motion to reconsider must identify a legal or factual error in the BIA’s prior
decision.”); Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246.
The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
NO. 18-70174: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part;
DISMISSED in part.
NO. 18-71759: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --