Ling Yang 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LING YANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73521
Agency No. A096-349-192
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Ling Yang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal
proceedings held in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
JUN 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-73521 2
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, Iturribarria v. INS,
321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Yang’s motion to reopen as
untimely where the motion was filed more than three years after the immigration
judge’s removal order became final. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c). Yang failed to
establish the due diligence required to warrant tolling of the motions deadline, see
Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897, and the documentary evidence she submitted was
insufficient to establish a material change in enforcement of China’s one-child
policy against similarly situated individuals, see Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 986
(9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --