Saihua Guo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SAIHUA GUO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-75143
Agency No. A078-751-326
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Saihua Guo, 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 the denial of
FILED
SEP 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-75143 2
a motion to reopen, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2007), and
we deny the petition for review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Guo’s second motion to
reopen as untimely because Guo filed it over five years after the agency issued its
final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Guo failed to demonstrate
changed country conditions to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time or
number limits 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) (record did not establish change in
family planning laws or enforcement of such laws that would establish changed
country conditions excusing untimely motion to reopen); He, 501 F.3d at 1132 (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
excusing the untimely filing of a motion to reopen).
Guo’s argument that she is entitled to reopen to file an asylum application is
foreclosed by this court’s decision in Chen v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th
Cir. 2008) (an alien may file an asylum application only in connection with a
successful motion to reopen, subject to the time and number limitations).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --