Yongtao Zou 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
YONGTAO ZOU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72298
Agency No. A078-165-845
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Yongtao Zou, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen based on
ineffective assistance of counsel. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Singh v.
FILED
JUL 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-72298 2
Holder, 658 F.3d 879, 885 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Zou’s motion to reopen as
untimely because the motion was filed more than six years after the final order of
removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Zou failed to show the due diligence
necessary for equitable tolling, see Singh, 658 F.3d at 884.
We lack jurisdiction over Zou’s contention regarding changed country
conditions in China because he failed to exhaust this issue before the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Zou’s motion for judicial notice is denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --