Li Zhu 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LI ZHU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-72289
Agency No. A095-450-164
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Li Zhu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her motion to reopen proceedings conducted in
absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
JUL 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-72289 2
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 agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Zhu’s motion to reopen as
untimely because the motion was filed more than five years after the final order of
removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i) (an alien seeking to reopen and rescind
an in absentia removal order based on exceptional circumstances must file the
motion within 180 days), and Zhu failed to establish the due diligence required for
equitable tolling of the filing deadline, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897.
Zhu failed to raise, and therefore waived, any challenge to the BIA’s denial
of her motion to remand her case to the IJ for consideration of new evidence. See
Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (a petitioner waives an
issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --