Dian Cai Lin 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DIAN CAI LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70117
Agency No. A076-641-165
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.
Dian Cai Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s order denying his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, He v.
FILED
JUL 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70117 2
Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny the petition for
review.
The agency denied Lin’s motion to reopen as untimely, and also denied it as
a matter of discretion based upon Lin’s failure to appear at his asylum merits
hearing in 2000 and his subsequent failure to apprise the government of his address
until he filed a motion to reopen in 2006. In his opening brief, Lin failed to
challenge the agency’s discretionary denial of his motion to reopen, which is
dispositive. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996)
(stating that issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned); see also
Sequeira-Solano v. INS, 104 F.3d 278, 279 (9th Cir. 1997) (“The BIA considered
all of the relevant circumstances in [petitioner’s] case and decided that a favorable
exercise of its discretion in this case was not warranted.”).
Lin’s contention that he is entitled to file a successive asylum application is
foreclosed by this court’s decision in Chen v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1028, 1032 (9th
Cir. 2008) (an alien may file a successive asylum application only in connection
with a successful motion to reopen, subject to the time and number limitations).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --