Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A95-195-575.
Before: CANBY, BEEZER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Qigang Liu, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board
Page 148.
of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider its order affirming the immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying asylum and reopening of his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA's decision to deny a motion to reopen or to reconsider. Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1187 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc). We deny the petition for review.
To the extent Liu's motion can be construed as a request to reopen, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because it was not supported by previously unavailable evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323, 112 S.Ct. 719, 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Liu's motion to reconsider as it determined that the IJ made an adverse credibility finding and stated that the IJ's decision was without error. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); see Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 792-93 (9th Cir.2005) ("[T]he BIA must issue a decision that fully explains the reasons for denying a motion to [reconsider].").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.