Wen-Ying Qiu, a.k.a. CHAO-YING LI 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
WEN-YING QIU, a.k.a. CHAO-YING LI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71102
Agency No. A072-938-036
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Wen-Ying Qiu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen,
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71102 2
He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Qiu’s motion to reopen as
untimely because Qiu filed it over eleven years after the agency issued its final
removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Qiu 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. We reject Qiu’s contention that the
BIA erred it its evaluation of the evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Qiu’s claim that she failed to receive
proper notice of her removal hearing date, because she failed to exhaust this before
the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --