Jie Hu v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIE HU,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 13-70897
13-72082
Agency No. A075-657-752
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Jie Hu, a native and citizen of
China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
February 14, 2013, order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings (No.
13-70897), and the BIA’s May 14, 2013, order denying his subsequent motion to
* 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).
FILED
NOV 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-70897
reconsider or reopen (No. 13-72082). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
reopen and reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny the petitions for review.
Because our review is limited to the administrative record, we do not
consider materials referenced in or attached to the opening brief that were not part
of the record before the agency. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir.
1996) (en banc).
In No. 13-70897, Hu concedes the untimely motion to reopen was not
supported by required evidence of changed country conditions. Thus, we deny the
petition for review as to No. 13-70897. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
In No. 13-72082, the BIA construed Hu’s filing as both a motion to
reconsider and a motion to reopen. We reject Hu’s contention that the BIA did
not consider the motion to reconsider/reopen. The BIA did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion to reconsider because it did not identify any error
of fact or law in the BIA’s decision dated February 14, 2013.
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (motions to reconsider “shall state the reasons for the
motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-70897
The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Hu’s untimely motion to
reopen on the ground that he failed to show due diligence for his ineffective
assistance of counsel claim. See Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th
Cir. 2007) (equitable tolling of time limit for motion to reopen unavailable to
petitioner who failed to show due diligence after becoming suspicious of deficient
representation).
Finally, the order to show cause issued in No. 13-72082 is vacated as issued
in error.
Thus, we deny the petition for review in 13-72082.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --