NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 14 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LIDIA RAQUEL ARIAS-MERCADO, No. 21-70490 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-815-324 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 8, 2022** Seattle, Washington Before: NGUYEN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Lidia Raquel Arias Mercado petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen her removal proceedings based on changed country conditions in El Salvador. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. * 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 “critical question” is “whether circumstances have changed sufficiently [in the country of removal] that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for [relief] now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.” Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the evidence supporting the motion to reopen must be “qualitatively different” than the evidence available at the time of the petitioner’s previous hearing. Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Malty, 381 F.3d at 945). Here, the evidence does not reflect a change in Salvadorian gangs’ targeting of the families of their victims. And, at the time of her prior hearing, Arias Mercado’s family had faced extortionate demands and accompanying death threats from gang members that are qualitatively similar to those she now cites as evidence of changed conditions. While a “significant quantitative difference” in country conditions may be sufficient to show a qualitative difference, the evidence in this case falls short. Etemadi v. Garland, 12 F.4th 1013, 1030 (9th Cir. 2021). Therefore, the BIA’s determination that Arias Mercado failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in El Salvador material to her claim for relief was not “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.” Chandra v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1018 (9th Cir. 2004)). 1 1 The BIA sufficiently considered Arias Mercado’s arguments and evidence in reaching its determination. While the BIA’s decision must reflect consideration of the issues raised before it and provide sufficient explanation for review, it is not 2 Because Arias Mercado cannot demonstrate the requisite change in country conditions, we need not reach the BIA’s alternate holding that she failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. PETITION DENIED. required to “write an exegesis on every contention.” Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1206–07 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004)). 3 21-70490 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Lidia Arias-Mercado v. Merrick Garland 14 March 2022 Agency Unpublished 4b970916143ffb479070745e062daebaafbdbe11
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals