Ping Dong v. Loretta E. Lynch

MEMORANDUM

Ping Dong, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen to present evidence that she was forced to undergo two abortions in China in the 1980s.

1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Dong’s untimely motion to reopen for failure to present material, previously unavailable evidence of changed country conditions. Evidence that Dong was subjected to forced abortions in China in the 1980s was neither unavailable at the time of her March 2004 merits hearing nor indicative of changed circumstances in China since then. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3).

2. Nor did the BIA abuse its discretion in finding that Dong failed to demonstrate due diligence in raising her ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim so as to warrant equitable tolling of the time and numerical limitations on motions to reopen. See Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir.2011). Dong argues that all of her previous lawyers provided ineffective assistance by failing to present evidence that she was subjected to forced abortions in China. She was aware, however, that her lawyers…