NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 3 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELTON JAVIER RUGAMA, AKA Elton No. 16-70458 Rugama, Agency No. A028-876-799 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Elton Javier Rugama, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo * 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). constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. To the extent Rugama submitted non-cumulative evidence of rehabilitation in support of his motion to reopen, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion where he did not establish that the evidence would likely have changed the outcome of his case. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c); Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (a motion to open must show that “if proceedings were reopened, the new evidence would likely change the result in the case” (citation omitted)); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601-03 (9th Cir. 2006). We reject Rugama’s contention that the BIA mischaracterized its previous October 1, 2015, decision. Rugama’s contention that the BIA failed to consider relevant evidence is not supported by the record. See Fernandez, 439 F.3d at 603 (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record); Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 16-70458 16-70458 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Elton Rugama v. Jefferson Sessions 3 November 2017 Agency Unpublished 60fc082c3d35d6919643bd7a99feb5283ec48fdf
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals