Hui Ying Li 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HUI YING LI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70242
Agency No. A095-577-109
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.
Hui Ying Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
SEP 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70242 2
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 Li’s second motion to
reopen as untimely and number-barred, because she filed it nearly two years after
the BIA issued its final administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Li
failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the time limit and numerical bar for filing motions to reopen,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1131-32
(9th Cir. 2007) (change in personal circumstances is does not establish changed
circumstances in the country of origin excusing untimely motion to reopen).
Li’s contention that the BIA failed to consider evidence presented with the
motion to reopen fails, because she has not overcome the presumption that the BIA
did review the evidence. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.
2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --