SUSSAN NG V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 14-73000 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED APR 18 2017 NOT FOR PUBLICATION MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SUSSAN NG and LIN XIE, Petitioners, No. 14-73000 Agency Nos. A098-176-997 A098-176-996 v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 11, 2017** Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Sussan Ng and Lin Xie, natives of China and citizens of Australia, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ second motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred, where it was filed more than six years after the order of removal became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and they have not established that any statutory or regulatory exception applies, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3). We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ challenges to their underlying proceedings, the BIA’s 2007 dismissal of their appeal from an immigration judge’s finding of removability, and the BIA’s 2008 denial of their motion to reconsider and 2012 denial of their first motion to reopen, because this petition is not timely as to those orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). To the extent petitioners seek prosecutorial discretion, we lack jurisdiction to consider such a request. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 14-73000

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.