NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BAOSHAN FU, No. 17-72908 19-71281 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-303-111 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 17, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER, W. FLETCHER, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. Baoshan Fu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his second and third motions to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we review for abuse of discretion, Martinez v. Barr, 941 F.3d 907, 921 (9th Cir. 2019). We deny the petition for review. * 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). A petitioner may generally file only one motion to reopen within ninety days of the order being challenged. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Fu’s motions to reopen exceeded these time and number limitations, and the BIA found that Fu failed to show that he qualified for any exception. But Fu contends that his motions are not procedurally barred because he (1) suffered ineffective assistance of counsel; (2) presented material evidence of changed country conditions; and (3) qualified for an adjustment of status. He further challenges the BIA’s refusal to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen removal proceedings. Ineffective assistance of counsel. Fu asserts that his attorney failed to inform him of his right to petition this court for review after the BIA in 2005 summarily affirmed denial of his requests for relief. Fu failed to adhere to the procedural rules required of petitioners bringing ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Matter of Lozada, 19 I. &. N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988)). Nor has Fu shown that his “counsel’s ineffective assistance was obvious and undisputed” or that his “diligent efforts to comply [with the procedural requirements] were unsuccessful due to factors beyond [Fu’s] control.” See Reyes v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 592, 597 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, Fu’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim fails. Changed country conditions. Fu argues that he is not subject to the ninety- day deadline and one-motion limits because he presented new evidence of changed 2 country conditions that is “material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). The evidence supporting Fu’s motions to reopen reiterates the religious persecution he described in the original removal proceedings 1 but does not show that “circumstances have changed sufficiently” in China for members of his religion such that Fu “now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.” Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004). Fu’s ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals