Dien Hsing Jiang 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DIEN HSING JIANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71125
Agency No. A072-962-149
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.
Dien Hsing Jiang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion entitled “motion
to file successive asylum application pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 208.4 or in the
alternative motion to reopen.” We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
SEP 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-71125 2
review de novo the BIA’s legal conclusions and due process contentions, see Ram
v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny the petition for review.
Jiang’s argument that he is entitled to file a successive asylum application
based on changed personal circumstances in the United States is foreclosed by this
court’s decision in Chen v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1028, 1031-32 (9th Cir. 2008) (an
alien may file a successive asylum application only in connection with a successful
motion to reopen, subject to time and number limitations). Jiang’s contention that
his removal will violate international treaty law is also foreclosed by Chen. See id.
at 1033. Because Jiang was only entitled to file his successive asylum application
in connection with a motion to reopen, see id. at 1031-32, the BIA did not err in
construing his motion as a motion to reopen. Jiang does not otherwise challenge
the BIA’s finding that the motion was untimely and numerically-barred, and that
Jiang failed to established changed circumstances in China to qualify for the
regulatory exception to these bars.
Finally, Jiang’s contentions that the BIA violated his due process rights lack
merit. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (holding petitioner
must demonstrate error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --