Narrative Opinion Summary
A Chinese national, Jin Hao Zheng, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision that denied his motion to reopen removal proceedings. The United States Court of Appeals evaluated the petition under its jurisdiction as provided by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, applying an abuse of discretion standard. The court found no abuse of discretion in the BIA's denial, as Zheng's motion was filed 20 months past the 90-day deadline, failing to meet any exceptions under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). Furthermore, the court lacked jurisdiction to review Zheng's asylum application denial on its merits because the motion to reopen did not toll the appeal deadline. Zheng's additional claim regarding custody redetermination was dismissed due to lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Consequently, the court denied the petition in part and dismissed it in part, ruling that the disposition is not suitable for publication nor does it establish precedent, in accordance with 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Abuse of Discretion Standardsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The BIA's denial of Zheng's motion to reopen was reviewed for abuse of discretion and was found to be appropriate.
Reasoning: The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zheng’s motion to reopen as it was filed 20 months after the 90-day deadline.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remediessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Zheng's claim regarding custody redetermination was dismissed due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Reasoning: The court also dismisses Zheng’s unexhausted claim concerning custody redetermination.
Jurisdictional Limitations on Asylum Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court lacks jurisdiction to review the merits of Zheng’s asylum application as the appeal was not timely.
Reasoning: Additionally, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA's August 26, 2002, decision denying Zheng’s asylum application on its merits, as a motion to reopen does not toll the time to appeal the final order.
Jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision is established under this statute.
Reasoning: The jurisdiction for this review is established under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and the standard of review is for abuse of discretion.
Precedential Value of Court Dispositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision is not deemed suitable for publication and does not establish precedent, except as provided by circuit rules.
Reasoning: The petition for review is denied in part and dismissed in part, with the disposition deemed not suitable for publication and not establishing precedent, except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Timeliness of Motions to Reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Zheng's motion to reopen was untimely, filed well beyond the 90-day deadline, and did not meet any exceptions.
Reasoning: The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zheng’s motion to reopen as it was filed 20 months after the 90-day deadline, and it did not qualify for any exceptions to this deadline under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c).