NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 13 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALFREDO JIMENEZ ULLOA, AKA No. 19-72791 Alfredo Ulloa Jimenez, Agency No. A205-722-037 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 11, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: BENNETT and SUNG, Circuit Judges, and FOOTE,*** District Judge. Petitioner Alfredo Jimenez Ulloa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order upholding the * 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 Elizabeth E. Foote, United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his motion to reopen. We review the “BIA’s ruling on a motion to reopen . . . for abuse of discretion” and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Jie Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1023 (9th Cir. 2004). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. Petitioner’s motion to reopen claimed that he qualifies for cancellation of removal based on new evidence showing that his “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to [his two sons], who [are] citizen[s] of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). The BIA determined that Petitioner’s evidence failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for a motion to reopen: “A motion to reopen will not be granted unless the Immigration Judge is satisfied that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3). The BIA found that the medical evidence regarding Andrew Jimenez was not material because Petitioner presented no evidence showing that Andrew is his son and thus a qualifying relative under the cancellation of removal statute. The BIA also found that although Petitioner had submitted evidence showing that Aiden Jimenez is his son, Petitioner failed to show that the evidence of Aiden’s medical condition was previously unavailable. The BIA’s findings are supported by the record. Thus, it did not abuse its discretion in upholding the IJ’s denial of the motion to reopen. 2 PETITION DENIED. 3 19-72791 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Alfredo Jimenez Ulloa v. Merrick Garland 13 July 2022 Agency Unpublished a00eadf53c642a245ee3da108431958ecc153f45
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals