Jie Gao 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JIE GAO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73876
Agency No. A095-448-618
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jie Gao, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s
FILED
MAY 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-73876 2
denial of a motion to reopen. Guzman v. INS, 318 F.3d 911, 912 n.1 (9th Cir.
2003) (per curiam). We deny the petition for review.
Gao contends that the BIA erred in denying her motion to reopen because it
failed to recognize that Chinese authorities distinguish between activist and non-
activist members of the China Democracy Party (“CDP”) and that the latter have
been subject to increased mistreatment since her in absentia removal order in 2002.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gao’s untimely motion to reopen
because the record, including the State Department’s 2006 country report, does not
show a material change in conditions in China for CDP members since Gao was
first ordered removed. See Almaraz v. Holder, 608 F.3d 638, 640-42 (9th Cir.
2010). Accordingly, Gao’s motion to reopen fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --