FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 17 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BERNARDO SALADO-ALVA, AKA Nos. 15-71847 Bernie Salado, 15-72758 Petitioner, Agency No. A024-221-509 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 13, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Bernardo Salado-Alva, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his third motion to reopen his removal proceedings and the BIA’s denial of his motion for reconsideration 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). that decision. Although Salado’s motion to reopen was untimely and numerically barred, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7), Salado asserted a change in country conditions, see id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii), and invoked the BIA’s discretionary authority to reopen proceedings sua sponte, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581–82, 588 (9th Cir. 2016); Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1202–03 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) does not preclude jurisdiction in the circumstances presented here). We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen premised on changed country conditions for an abuse of discretion, Agonafer, 859 F.3d at 1203, but review the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening only “for legal or constitutional error,” Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion for reconsideration for an abuse of discretion. Mohammed, 400 F.3d at 791. 1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Salado’s motion to reopen based on changed country conditions. To prevail on this ground, the movant must establish a “material” change in country conditions that, together with previously submitted evidence, demonstrate “prima facie eligibility for the relief sought.” Agonafer, 859 F.3d at 1204 (citation omitted); see 8 C.F.R. 2 § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). First, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Salado failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). We have already rejected Salado’s proposed “particular social group” of “Americanized Mexican deportees.” See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228–29 (9th Cir. 2016); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1150–52 (9th Cir. 2010). And his evidence regarding persecution on account of his membership in this proposed social group consists of a “general, undifferentiated claim” of violence in Mexico, which is insufficient. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1066 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc)). Second, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Salado failed ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals