BIAO ZHENG V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 12-73174 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 02 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BIAO ZHENG, No. 12-73174 Petitioner, Agency No. A072-337-305 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 19, 2013** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Biao Zheng, 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 abuse 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). discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 674 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review. Zheng s contentions regarding whether he received proper notice were addressed in this court s prior decision in Biao Zheng v. Holder, 423 Fed. Appx. 699 (9th Cir. 2011) ( hearing notice was sent by certified mail to the address last provided by Zheng and he failed to timely inform the immigration court of his address change). To the extent Zheng now contends that the agency abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen because he was not sufficiently apprised of the change-of-address requirement, Zheng s contention fails. Zheng was personally served with an Order to Show Cause ( OSC ) and there was no statutory requirement that the OSC be orally translated. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(a)(1) (1992). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zheng s motion to reopen based on changed country conditions where Zheng failed to supply any evidence of a material change in circumstances in China. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 12-73174

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.