Chien-Ching Cheng 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 concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHIEN-CHING CHENG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-72994
Agency No. A072-968-961
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Chien-Ching Cheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to
reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-
FILED
JUL 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

06-72994 2
31 (9th Cir. 2007), and we review de novo due process claims, Iturribarria v. INS,
321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Cheng’s motion to reopen
as untimely because Cheng filed it over twelve years after the BIA issued its final
removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Cheng failed to demonstrate
changed country conditions, including a change in laws or the enforcement of
family planning laws, to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for
filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d
981, 988-989 (9th Cir. 2009); He, 501 F.3d at 1132.
Cheng’s contention that the BIA violated due process by failing to consider
the entirety of the evidence he submitted fails because he has not overcome the
presumption that the BIA did review the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439
F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --