Luoman Chen 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
LUOMAN CHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-73481
Agency No. A070-036-839
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2013**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Luoman Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the
FILED
FEB 15 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-73481 2
BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1128, 1130-31 (9th
Cir. 2007). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Chen’s motion to reopen as
untimely because the motion was filed over thirteen years late, see 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2(c)(2), and, even accepting Chen’s and his family’s claims as true, he failed
to demonstrate a material change in circumstances in China 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 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); He, 501 F.3d at 1132 (change in personal circumstances does not establish
changed circumstances in country of origin). Because the BIA considered Chen’s
evidence in reaching its conclusion, we reject Chen’s contention that the BIA
dismissed his evidence as not credible. Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the
BIA’s discretionary decision declining to exercise its sua sponte authority under 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder, 633 F.3d 818, 823-24 (9th
Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --