Xiu Er Zhou 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
XIU ER ZHOU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72996
Agency No. A072-095-599
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Xiu Er Zhou, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion. Lin v.
Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition for review.
FILED
APR 06 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zhou’s motion to reopen as
untimely because Zhou filed the motion more than twelve years after the BIA’s
final decision, see 8 C.F.R.§ 1003.2(c)(2), and her evidence did not show that the
family planning laws or enforcement of those laws in China has materially changed
since her removal hearing, see Lin, 588 F.3d at 988. Further, “the birth of children
outside the country of origin is a change in personal circumstances that is not
sufficient to establish changed circumstances in the country of origin within the
regulatory exception to late-filed” motions to reopen. Id. at 986 (quoting He v.
Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, the BIA’s
determination that Zhou failed to show a material change in country conditions in
China, particularly in the Fujian province, was not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary
to law.” Id. at 988 (quoting He, 501 F.3d at 1131).
Zhou’s contention that she should have been permitted to file a successive
asylum application is foreclosed. See Lin, 588 F.3d at 989 (rejecting petitioner’s
argument that, independent from her motion to reopen, she was entitled to file a
free-standing successive asylum application).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --