Hsiao, et al v. Holder, No. 08-70284 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 24 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TAI-CHI HSIAO, No. 08-70284 Petitioner, Agency No. A070-104-839 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Tai-Chi Hsiao, 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 * 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). abuse of 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 Hsiao s motion to reopen as untimely where he filed it 12 years after the BIA s final order of deportation, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Hsiao 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). Hsiao s contention that he should have been permitted to file a successive asylum application is foreclosed. See Lin, 588 F.3d at 989 (rejecting petitioner s contention that, independent from her motion to reopen, she was entitled to file a free-standing asylum application). Hsiao 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). 2 08-70284 Finally, we reject Hsiao s contention that the BIA applied improper standards of law in denying his motion to reopen because it is belied by the record. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 08-70284
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
