NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 18 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELPIDIO RAMIREZ DORANTES, AKA No. 17-72513 Elipdio Ramirez Dorantes, AKA Elpidio Dorantes Ramirez, Agency No. A087-747-721 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 15, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: W. FLETCHER, GOULD, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Elpidio Ramirez Dorantes (“Ramirez”), a citizen and native of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his second motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under § 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Aliyev v. Barr, 971 F.3d 1085, 1085–86 (9th Cir. 2020), we deny the petition. I In 2014, an Immigration Judge ordered Ramirez removed to Mexico and denied his application for cancellation of removal and for voluntary departure. The BIA dismissed Ramirez’s appeal in July 2015, and no petition for review of that order was filed in this Court. In October 2015, Ramirez filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings, arguing that he had been prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel. The BIA denied that motion, and this court denied in part and dismissed in part Ramirez’s petition for review in April 2017. Ramirez- Dorantes v. Sessions, 688 Fed. App’x 432, 433 (9th Cir. 2017). One month after our decision, Ramirez filed a second motion to reopen before the BIA, arguing that, due to changed country conditions, he was now entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“Torture Convention”). The BIA denied the motion. This timely petition for review followed. II Ordinarily, an alien is allowed to file only one motion to reopen, which must be filed “within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); see also id. § 1229a(c)(7)(A). However, 2 the statute and regulations allow a later or successive motion to be filed if, inter alia, the purpose of the motion is to apply for asylum or withholding of removal based on “changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). In addition, the alien must present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for at least one form of relief requested. Ramirez- Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2016). The BIA held that Ramirez …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals