Huazhu Zheng, a.k.a. HSU YING- HSIA KUO, a.k.a. QUO SU YING ZAW, a.k.a. HUA ZHU ZHENG 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HUAZHU ZHENG, a.k.a. HSU YING-
HSIA KUO, a.k.a. QUO SU YING ZAW,
a.k.a. HUA ZHU ZHENG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71132
Agency No. A072-898-321
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Huazhu Zheng, 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
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71132 2
denial of a motion to reopen, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir.
2007), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zheng’s motion to reopen as
untimely because Zheng filed it over eleven years after the BIA issued its final
removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Zheng failed to demonstrate
changed country conditions, including a change in laws or the enforcement of
family planning laws, to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit 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); He, 501 F.3d at 1132.
We reject Zheng’s contention that the BIA erred in its evaluation of the
evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). We also reject Zheng’s contention that the
BIA did not adequately examine her evidence because she has not overcome the
presumption that the BIA reviewed the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439
F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --