NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 14 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GABRIEL SALDANA-SALGADO, No. 19-70486 Petitioner, Agency No. A201-022-059 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 10, 2022** Phoenix, Arizona Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and O’SCANNLAIN and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Gabriel Saldana-Salgado asks this Court to grant his petition for review and to reverse the denial of his second motion to reopen proceedings. As the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision. We * 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). deny the petition. Petitioners “may file only one motion to reopen . . . and that motion must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). This is Salgado’s second motion to reopen and it was filed more than 90 days after the final decision. Petitioner, however, argues that his motion is exempt from the limitations of § 1003.2(c)(2) because it falls under the exception carved out in § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). To prevail on this claim, Salgado “must ‘clear four hurdles: (1) he [must] produce evidence that [country] conditions [have] changed . . . (2) the evidence [must] be “material;” (3) the evidence must not have been available . . . previous[ly] . . . and (4) . . . the new evidence . . . would establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought.’” Rodriguez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th Cir. 2021) (alterations in original) (quoting Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008)); see also Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 607 (9th Cir. 2014). The BIA denied the motion because it found that Salgado failed to demonstrate a material change in country conditions and failed to show prima facie eligibility for relief. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in reviewing his motion. “[T]he [BIA] does not have to write an exegesis on every contention.” Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (second 2 alteration in original) (quoting Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004)). Instead, it merely must “consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” Id. It did so here when it acknowledged the evidence Petitioner presented and articulated specific grounds for the denial of his motion. In any event, the BIA did not abuse its discretion because Salgado failed to show that “the circumstances of the country at …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals