Yanyun Ren v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YANYUN REN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-72296
Agency No. A078-706-866
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Yanyun Ren, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
JAN 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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). Thus, we deny Ren’s request
for oral argument.

-- 1 of 2 --

discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ren’s motion to reopen as
untimely because the motion was filed over four years after the BIA’s final
decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Ren failed to establish materially
changed circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time
limitation for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi, 597
F.3d at 987 (new evidence “must be ‘qualitatively different’ from the evidence
presented at the previous hearing”).
We reject Ren’s contention that the BIA’s analysis was inadequate or
incomplete. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (the BIA “does not have to write an
exegesis on every contention”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-72296 2

-- 2 of 2 --