Zhi Hui Li v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 1992

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1097
ZHI HUI LI,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A77-151-643)
Submitted: July 9, 2007 Decided: July 30, 2007
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Christophe, CHRISTOPHE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., New York, New
York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Anthony W. Norwood,
Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Zhi Hui Li, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic
of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying her motion to reopen based on
changed circumstances. We deny the petition for review.
We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for
abuse of discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2006); INS v. Doherty,
502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992); Yanez-Popp v. INS, 998 F.2d 231, 234
(4th Cir. 1993). A denial of a motion to reopen must be reviewed
with extreme deference, since immigration statutes do not
contemplate reopening and the applicable regulations disfavor
motions to reopen. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 1990)
(en banc). Motions to reopen must be filed “no later than 90 days
after the date on which the final administrative decision was
rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened, or on or before
September 30, 1996, whichever is later.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)
(2006). An exception to the 90 day window is a claim of changed
circumstances in the country to which the alien is to be deported.
Section 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
Clearly, the Board did not abuse its discretion in
finding that the motion was untimely, as it was filed more than
four years after the final order. Furthermore, Li did not
sufficiently establish changed circumstances within China that
would excuse the untimeliness of the motion. In addition, we do

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
not have authority to review the Board’s decision not to sua sponte
reopen proceedings. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d
Cir. 2006). We also have no authority to review a Board’s decision
not to file the motion to reopen as a successive asylum application
citing changed personal circumstances. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3);
see also Najjar v. Gonzales, 257 F.3d 1262, 1281 n.8 (11th Cir.
2001).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --