NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 28 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ENG CHHUN, No. 18-72340 Petitioner, Agency No. A094-833-083 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 9, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: KELLY,*** GOULD, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Eng Chhun petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) denial of his motion to reopen his petition seeking deferral of * 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). *** The Honorable Paul J. Kelly, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). This court previously denied review of the Board’s decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his request for asylum and withholding of removal. Chhun v. Holder, 345 F. App’x 297 (9th Cir. 2009). STANDARD OF REVIEW “We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, but review purely legal questions de novo.” Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). The Board abuses its discretion when its denial is “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 to review the Board’s denial of sua sponte reopening only where the petitioner challenges the legal premise of the denial. Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588. DISCUSSION The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, so we need not restate them here. Mr. Chhun makes two arguments on appeal. First, he argues that the Board erred by requiring him to demonstrate changed country conditions to succeed on his motion to reopen. Second, he argues that the Board abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen because it was based on new evidence and he presented a prima facie claim of entitlement to CAT protection. A. Changed Country Conditions Requirement 2 Mr. Chhun argues that the imposition of a changed country conditions requirement on motions to reopen CAT claims violates CAT and the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (FARRA). FARRA implements CAT, and both prohibit removal where there are substantial grounds to believe the removed person will be subject to torture. In general, a motion to reopen a Board decision must be filed within 90 days of the final administrative decision. 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c); see also Meza-Vallejos v. Holder, 669 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2012). However, this time limit does not apply to motions to reopen asylum or withholding of deportation claims “based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals