Qianyue Wu v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QIANYUE WU,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70831
Agency No. A095-649-009
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Qianyue Wu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 15 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-70831
983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Wu’s motion to reopen as
untimely, where it was filed more than four years after the BIA’s final order, see 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Wu failed to establish materially changed circumstances
in China as to either of his claims to qualify for the regulatory exception to the
time limit for filing a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-89 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to
warrant reopening). To the extent Wu contends his third child was born after his
2008 hearing, we reject his contention as contrary to the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --