Ming Jin; Ruifen Wan 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).
JK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MING JIN; RUIFEN WAN,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73378
Agency Nos. A079-522-796
A079-522-795
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Ming Jin and Ruifen Wan, natives and citizen of China, petition for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to
reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
JAN 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JK/Research 07-73378 2
review for 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 petitioners’ motion to
reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over a year after the BIA’s final
decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners 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 Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d
988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (in order to prevail on a motion to reopen based on
changed country conditions, petitioner must produce “new facts” showing changed
conditions that now establish a prima facie case for relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --