NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 18 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAVIER ALVAREZ CAZARES, AKA No. 20-71165 Javier Alvarez, Agency No. A205-318-326 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 13, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: W. FLETCHER and KOH, Circuit Judges, and KANE,*** District Judge. Javier Alvarez Cazares (“Alvarez”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his * 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). *** The Honorable Yvette Kane, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. motion to reopen removal proceedings based on changed country conditions in Mexico. The BIA concluded that Alvarez failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for asylum and related relief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and will not overturn the BIA’s decision unless it was arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We review the BIA’s “legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (citations omitted). Substantial evidence review means that “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992). We deny the petition. 1. The BIA’s denial of Alvarez’s motion to reopen was not an abuse of discretion because substantial evidence supports its conclusion that he failed to demonstrate prima facie eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. Generally, an alien must file a motion to reopen removal proceedings within ninety days of a final removal order. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). An alien may nonetheless file a belated motion to reopen to apply for asylum or withholding based on “changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to 2 which deportation has been ordered.” Id. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). To warrant reopening, a movant must proffer sufficient evidence to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2016). To establish prima facie eligibility, a movant must show “a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied.” Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1139 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir. 2003)). The record does not compel the conclusion that Alvarez established a reasonable likelihood that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals