NGUYEN TUYEN HONG V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-71270 (9th Cir. 2012)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED SEP 14 2012 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TUYEN HONG NGUYEN a.k.a. Nguyen Tuyen Hong; et al., No. 10-71270 Agency Nos. A077-427-195 A077-427-196 A077-427-197 Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM * Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 10, 2012 ** Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Tuyen Hong Nguyen and his wife and son, all citizens of Vietnam, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order denying their motions to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. * 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). § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA s denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over three years after the BIA s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in Vietnam 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); Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004) ( The critical question is . . . whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution. ). Petitioners do not challenge the BIA s denial of Tuan Anh Nguyen s separate motion to reopen. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 10-71270

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.