QING XU V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 09-74031 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 23 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT QING HE XU, No. 09-74031 Petitioner, Agency No. A098-356-856 v. MEMORANDUM * ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 17, 2012 ** Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Qing He Xu, 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 abuse of discretion the denial of * 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). a motion to reopen, Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Xu s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed a year and a half after the BIA s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Xu failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 988-89 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d at 996-97. We reject Xu s contention that the BIA did not adequately address his evidence. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (finding petitioner had not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (BIA must consider issues raised and announce its decision in a manner sufficient for reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 09-74031

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.