Xia Yu v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
XIA YU,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71828
Agency No. A089-879-877
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Xia Yu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JAN 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-71828
F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Yu’s motion to reopen as
untimely, where it was filed over one year after the final removal order, see
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of
the final removal order), and he has not established changed country conditions in
China to qualify for an exception to the filing deadline, see 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008)
(movant must produce material evidence that conditions in country of nationality
had changed); see also Rodriguez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1205, 1209-10 (9th Cir.
2021) (“Changes in a petitioner’s personal circumstances are only relevant where
those changes are related to the changed country conditions that form the basis for
the motion to reopen.”).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Yu’s remaining contentions
regarding the merits of his claims. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538
(9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary
to the results they reach).
We do not consider the materials Yu references in his opening brief that are
not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th
Cir. 1996) (en banc).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-71828
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --