Weiqiang 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JTK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WEIQIANG ZHENG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-73851
Agency No. A095-449-436
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Weiqiang Zheng, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order rejecting his motion to reopen
for lack of jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
FILED
DEC 07 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JTK/Research 06-73851 2
Reviewing de novo questions of law, Singh v. INS, 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.
2000), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA properly rejected Zheng’s motion to reopen for lack of jurisdiction.
See Matter of Mladineo, 14 I. & N. Dec. 591 (BIA 1974).
To the extent Zheng challenges the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) February 23,
2004, final order of removal, the IJ’s November 18, 2004, order denying his
motion to reopen, or the BIA’s April 26, 2005, order dismissing his appeal as
untimely, we lack jurisdiction because this petition is not timely as to those orders.
Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --