Shuyu Ren v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHUYU REN,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70682
Agency No. A089-967-482
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Shuyu Ren, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) order denying her motion to reconsider the denial of her prior 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 or 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
APR 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-70682
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Ren’s motion to
reconsider for failure to identify any error of fact or law in the IJ’s denial of her
motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(2). Ren’s underlying motion to
reopen was untimely, and she did not present sufficient evidence to establish that
she was prevented from timely filing the motion by any deception, fraud, or error.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1); Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897-98 (9th Cir.
2003). In addition, the record does not support her contention that the agency failed
to consider relevant evidence. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th
Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA did review
the record).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Ren’s unexhausted contention that the
administrative record is incomplete. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644
(9th Cir. 2012) (order).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --