Yan Liu v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YAN LIU,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72549
Agency No. A087-807-603
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Yan Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her 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. Mohammed v. Gonzales,
* 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 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-72549
400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Liu’s motion to reopen as
untimely, where it was filed more than five years after the order of removal
became final, and where Liu failed to establish changed country conditions in
China to qualify for an exception to the time limitation for filing a motion to
reopen. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3)(ii); see also
He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1132-33 & n.9 (9th Cir. 2007) (change in
petitioners’ personal situation was insufficient to establish changed circumstances
in China to support untimely motion to reopen but could be a basis for filing a new
asylum application).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening
where Liu has not asserted a legal or constitutional error. See Bonilla v. Lynch,
840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[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.”).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --