Lijuan Yang 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LIJUAN YANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72187
Agency No. A075-661-763
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 10, 2013**
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Lijuan Yang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
JUN 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-72187 2
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,
986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Yang’s motion to reopen as
untimely where the motion was filed over five years after the BIA’s final order, see
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Yang failed to present sufficient evidence of changed
circumstances in China 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). Yang’s contention that
the BIA abused its discretion when it failed to consider several documents she
submitted to establish changed country conditions in China fails, because Yang did
not overcome the presumption the agency reviewed the evidence. See
Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000). Further, the BIA
did not abuse its discretion by determining that Yang failed to establish that
China’s treatment of members of the Shouter faith has materially changed since the
time of her prior hearing. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --