Tai-Chi Hsiao 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TAI-CHI HSIAO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70284
Agency No. A070-104-839
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Tai-Chi Hsiao, 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
SEP 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-70284 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 Hsiao’s motion to reopen as
untimely where he filed it 12 years after the BIA’s final order of deportation, see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Hsiao 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).
Hsiao’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).
Hsiao’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).

-- 2 of 3 --

08-70284 3
Finally, we reject Hsiao’s contention that the BIA applied improper
standards of law in denying his motion to reopen because it is belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --