Dan Yun Chen, a.k.a. Dang Yun Chen 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DAN YUN CHEN, a.k.a. Dang Yun Chen,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74767
Agency No. A079-429-875
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Dan Yun Chen, 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
FILED
JUL 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74767 2
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d
889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen’s motion to reopen as
untimely, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Chen failed to establish changed
circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time
limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981,
988-89 (9th Cir. 2009) (record did not establish change in family planning laws or
enforcement of such laws that would establish changed country conditions
excusing untimely motion to reopen).
Chen’s contention that she should have been permitted to file a successive
asylum application is foreclosed. See Lin, 588 F.3d at 989 (rejecting petitioner’s
contention that, independent from her motion to reopen, she was entitled to file a
free-standing asylum application).
Finally, we deny Chen’s request for administrative notice of evidence that
she did not submit to the BIA, because our review is confined to the administrative
record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 964 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --