QI CHEN V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 13-71817 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT QI Y. CHEN, AKA Qi Yao Chen, AKA Qiyao Chen, AKA Qu Y. Chen, AKA Qu Yao Chen, AKA Wee Liang Tan, AKA Qi Yao, No. 13-71817 Agency No. A095-721-927 MEMORANDUM* Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 10, 2015** Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges Qi Y. Chen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the * 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). denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to consider Chen’s contentions regarding a pattern or practice of persecution of Christians in China, or the potential impact of his prior problems with the government in China on his well-founded fear, because he failed to raise these issues before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not raised to the agency). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Chen’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed over four years after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and the BIA reasonably determined Chen failed to establish changed circumstances in China to qualify for an exception to the time limitations for a motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 2 13-71817

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.