Jun Cheng Pan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JUN CHENG PAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-75130
Agency No. A070-901-961
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2010**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Jun Cheng Pan, a native and citizen of China, petitions 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
FILED
JUL 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-75130 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 Pan’s motion to reopen as
untimely where the motion was filed over two years after the BIA’s final
administrative decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Pan 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 to show changed country conditions excusing untimely
motion to reopen).
Pan’s contention that he 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).
Pan’s contention that the BIA failed to consider the evidence submitted with
the motion to reopen fails because he has not overcome the presumption that the
BIA reviewed the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.
2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --