NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 13 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAJVEER MUTTI, AKA Rajpal Singh, No. 20-70798 Petitioner, Agency No. A097-744-673 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 7, 2021** Portland, Oregon Before: W. FLETCHER, IKUTA, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Rajveer Mutti (also known as Rajpal Singh), a citizen of India, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his untimely and numerically barred motion to reopen his immigration proceedings, in which Mutti sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against * 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). Torture (CAT). We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and may grant relief only if the BIA’s decision was “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1203 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002)). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mutti’s second motion to reopen based on changed country conditions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). To show that he was entitled to reopening on that basis, Mutti had to: (1) produce evidence that conditions have changed in the country of removal; (2) demonstrate that the evidence is material; (3) show that the evidence was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearings; and (4) “demonstrate that the new evidence, when considered together with the evidence presented at the original hearing, would establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought.” Agonafer, 859 F.3d at 1204 (quoting Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008)). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Mutti failed to show that conditions had materially worsened in India since his original immigration proceedings more than a decade earlier. The BIA could reasonably conclude that Mutti’s participation in a rally in New York was a change in personal circumstances. See Rodriguez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing Chandra v. 2 Holder, 751 F.3d 1034, 1037 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that, although “personal circumstances may be relevant to a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions,” a petitioner must “provid[e] sufficient evidence of related changed country conditions”)). The BIA also reasonably concluded, based on an Immigration Judge’s prior adverse credibility determination and the contradictions between Mutti’s motion to reopen and his earlier testimony, that Mutti’s allegations of changed country conditions were “inherently unbelievable.” See Agonafer, 859 F.3d at 1203 (quoting Limsico v. INS, 951 F.2d 210, 213 (9th Cir. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals