Skip to content

Tan v. Holder (unpub)

July 19, 2010
tags:

**MTR, changed circumstances**

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Tan’s third motion to reopen as number-barred and untimely where the motion was filed nineteen years after the final order of deportation was entered in his case, and Tan failed to establish changed circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2010/07/19/07-72718.pdf

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 51 other followers