Zhaolin Liu v. Eric H. Holder Jr., No. 08-70866 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAR 07 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ZHAOLIN LIU, No. 08-70866 Petitioner, Agency No. A096-347-964 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 15, 2011 ** Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Zhaolin Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, He v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d * 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). 1128, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Liu s motion to reopen as untimely because Liu filed it more than 90 days after the BIA issued its final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Liu failed to demonstrate changed country conditions to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2008) (underlying adverse credibility determination rendered evidence of changed country conditions immaterial). We lack jurisdiction to review Liu s contentions regarding the BIA s July 15, 2005, order because his petition for review is not timely as to that order. See Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 08-70866

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.