FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAIME ALONSO RODRIGUEZ, No. 20-70240 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A095-625-165 MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 5, 2021 * Pasadena, California Filed March 15, 2021 Before: Ronald M. Gould, John B. Owens, and Lawrence VanDyke, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge VanDyke * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 RODRIGUEZ V. GARLAND SUMMARY ** Immigration Denying Jaime Alonso Rodriguez’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings, the panel held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Rodriguez failed to establish materially changed country conditions to warrant reopening. Rodriguez sought to reopen removal proceedings to seek asylum and related relief based on a “hybrid” change in personal circumstances and country conditions since his original removal hearing. The panel wrote that a petitioner’s personal circumstances may act as a necessary predicate to the success of a motion to reopen where the new personal circumstances make the provided changed country conditions evidence relevant to the petitioner’s changed personal circumstances. The panel observed that in this case, Rodriguez did not actually provide evidence of changes in both his personal circumstances and Mexico’s country conditions. Instead, he provided evidence of changes in his personal circumstances, along with evidence supporting his argument that, given his changed personal circumstances, he could now be persecuted or tortured based on current country conditions in Mexico. The panel wrote that what was noticeably absent from Rodriguez’s “hybrid” changed conditions claim was evidence of actual changed country conditions between his original 2003 hearing and his ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. RODRIGUEZ V. GARLAND 3 2016 motion to reopen. The panel held that the Board therefore did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Rodriguez failed to establish materially changed country conditions to warrant reopening. COUNSEL Henry A. Posada, Law Offices of Henry A. Posada, Downey, California, for Petitioner. Robbin K. Blaya, Trial Attorney; John S. Hogan, Assistant Director; Evan P. Davis, Acting Assistant Attorney General; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent. OPINION VANDYKE, Circuit Judge: I. Jaime Alonso Rodriguez (Petitioner) challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Petitioner is a Mexican citizen who was first deported from the U.S. pursuant to an order of removal in 2003. He was caught in 2012 attempting to smuggle back into the U.S. with several others in a boat. After being apprehended, Petitioner and his wife were privately interviewed by law enforcement, where they confirmed their smugglers’ identities. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to reopen 4 RODRIGUEZ V. GARLAND his 2003 removal proceedings …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals