NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 16 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALI BEN MOHAMED HENDAOUI, No. 19-72873 Petitioner, Agency No. A077-976-595 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 6, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: D.M. FISHER,*** WATFORD, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Ali Hendaoui, a native and citizen of Tunisia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) denial of his motion to reopen his immigration * 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 D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. proceedings after he was ordered to be removed. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 2342. We deny the petition. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, its legal determinations de novo, and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). 1. The Immigration Judge and BIA had jurisdiction over Hendaoui’s case. Contrary to Hendaoui’s argument, that fact is not changed by Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), or Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021). Pereira and Niz-Chavez deal solely with the stop-time rule of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1) and the notice to appear requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1161 (9th Cir. 2019); Niz-Chavez, 141 S. Ct. at 1479. The stop-time rule is not at issue here. And, as we explained in Karingithi, the Immigration Court’s jurisdiction is not controlled by § 1229(a), but by immigration regulations. 913 F.3d at 1158-59 (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.13, 1003.14, 1003.15). Under the jurisdictional regulations, a notice to appear like the one Hendaoui received—which says the date and time of the hearing are “To Be Set”—vests jurisdiction in the Immigration Court. Id. at 1159-60. 2. Hendaoui challenges the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen based on changed country conditions in Tunisia. An alien may exceed the normal time and number limitations for motions to reopen (one motion within ninety days) if he seeks 2 to reopen based on changed country conditions. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). The motion must be supported by evidence showing “a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for [asylum or withholding] have been satisfied.” Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1139 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). The BIA reasonably determined that even if atheists are persecuted in Tunisia, Hendaoui did not show that he is an activist who would be targeted. The only evidence of Hendaoui’s activism was printouts from his Facebook account showing that he …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals