NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 15 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HUBER CARLON AMBROCIO and No. 17-73224 MARICELA HERNANDEZ-NOLASCO, Agency Nos. A076-367-607 Petitioners, A076-367-608 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 13, 2019** Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Maricela Hernandez-Nolasco (“Maricela” or “petitioner”) entered the United States illegally during June 1988. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) discovered her illegal presence nine years later, in June of 1997. During asylum proceedings, Maricela requested cancellation of removal when her husband, Huber * 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). Carlon Ambrocio (“Huber”), withdrew his asylum application in which she was a derivative beneficiary, or rider, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3). Petitioner’s opening brief explained the reason for withdrawing their asylum application was that they did not believe they could make an effective claim for such relief at that time. On June 12, 1998, an immigration judge denied their application for cancellation of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed their appeal in a final order dated March 9, 2000. We denied their petition for review on June 18, 2002. Fifteen years later, on April 12, 2017, Maricela filed with the BIA a motion to reopen. The motion indicated that Huber had been deported to Mexico but that she had been able to remain here due to stays of removal granted by the DHS.1 A new asylum application accompanied her motion to reopen. For various reasons, the BIA denied her motion, concluding inter alia that she had failed to demonstrate “materially changed circumstances” which might excuse the untimeliness of her request, and that she had not demonstrated prima facie eligibility for the relief she sought. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992). The BIA issued its final 1 Huber is listed as a party to this petition, but he did not submit his own asylum application with Maricela’s, he was not included as a rider on her application, and he has not asserted any claims on his own or offered any evidence on his behalf. Therefore, we grant the government’s motion to dismiss him from this petition. [Dkt. No. 15] 2 17-73224 order of removal on November 28, 2017. As to petitioner’s claims based on her status as (1) a Mexican returnee, (2) her membership in the social group of business owners and their families, and (3) her opposition to gangs or drug cartels, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that she failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA can deny a motion to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals