Shu Hua Tan 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SHU HUA TAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72718
Agency No. A028-957-977
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.
Shu Hua Tan, 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
FILED
JUL 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-72718 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 Tan’s third motion to reopen
as number-barred and untimely where the motion was filed nineteen years after the
final order of deportation was entered in his case, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and
Tan failed to establish changed circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory
exception to the time limitation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Lin v.
Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 988-89 (9th Cir. 2009) (record did not establish change in
family planning laws or enforcement of such laws that would establish changed
country conditions excusing untimely motion to reopen).
Tan’s contention that the BIA failed to consider the evidence submitted with
the motion to reopen fails, because he has not overcome the presumption that the
BIA reviewed the record. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.
2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --