FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GARFIELD GREENWOOD, AKA Errol No. 17-72389 Brown, AKA Ivan Daniel, Petitioner, Agency No. A076-186-391 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney OPINION General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 9, 2022 * Pasadena, California Filed June 16, 2022 Before: Sandra S. Ikuta, Kenneth K. Lee, and Danielle J. Forrest, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Lee * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 GREENWOOD V. GARLAND SUMMARY ** Immigration Denying in part and dismissing in part Garfield Greenwood’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his motion to reopen based on changed country conditions, the panel held that the Board may rely on a previous adverse credibility determination to deny a motion to reopen if that earlier finding still factually undermines the petitioner’s new argument. Greenwood, AKA Errol Brown and Ivan Daniel, asserted that changed circumstances in his native Jamaica— a spike in violence against members of the People’s National Party—justified his untimely second motion to reopen. Because an Immigration Judge in an earlier proceeding found Greenwood not credible and questioned his actual identity, the Board ruled that the new evidence of political violence did not matter because Greenwood may not even be a member of the People’s National Party. The panel concluded that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Greenwood’s motion to reopen. Agreeing with Matter of F-S-N-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 1 (BIA 2020), the panel explained that to prevail on a motion to reopen alleging changed country conditions where the persecution claim was previously denied on adverse credibility grounds, the respondent must either overcome the prior credibility determination or show that the new claim is ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. GREENWOOD V. GARLAND 3 independent of the evidence that was found to be not credible. Here, Greenwood did not challenge the adverse credibility finding, but instead argued that his new evidence was independent of the evidence that was found to be not credible. The panel rejected that argument. The panel explained that the IJ had previously found Greenwood’s testimony about his identity not credible, thus undermining his entire claim. Moreover, Greenwood’s claims remained the same throughout his proceedings—a fear of violence on account of political party membership. The panel concluded that the basis of Greenwood’s motion to reopen therefore remained intertwined with his credibility problem. The panel wrote that its decision was consistent with precedent requiring the Board to accept as true facts asserted in a motion to reopen unless they are “inherently unbelievable,” explaining that concerns of fair play and substantial justice, which generally arise because motions to reopen are decided without benefit of a hearing, do not apply if the IJ, who first heard the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals