Yu Liang Chen v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NHY/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YU LIANG CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-75252
Agency No. A070-550-712
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Yu Liang Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

NHY/Research 05-75252 2
denial of a motion to reopen, and we review de novo due process claims.
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). 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 where it was filed more than two years after the BIA’s January 27, 2003,
order dismissing his underlying appeal, and Chen failed to demonstrate he
qualified for an exception to the time limit or for equitable tolling. See 8 C.F.R.
§§ 1003.2(c)(2)-(3); Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897-98 (9th Cir. 2003).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua
sponte authority to reopen proceedings. See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159
(9th Cir. 2002).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Chen’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --