FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 8 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MANUEL DIAZ, AKA Diego Morales, No. 20-71450 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-246-098 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 17, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: BYBEE, CALLAHAN, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Manuel Diaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of * 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). discretion. Chandra v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2014). “The BIA abuses its discretion when its denial of a motion to reopen is ‘arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.’” Id. (quoting Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1018 (9th Cir. 2004)). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. A motion to reopen must ordinarily be filed within ninety days of the final order of removal, but an exception applies if the motion is based on changed country conditions and the “evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), (ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1203–04 (9th Cir. 2017). To succeed based on changed country conditions, the movant must: “(1) produce evidence that conditions have changed in the country of removal, (2) demonstrate that the evidence is material, (3) show that the evidence was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing, and (4) demonstrate that the new evidence, when considered together with the evidence presented at the original hearing, would establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought.” Silva v. Garland, 993 F.3d 705, 718 (9th Cir. 2021). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Diaz’s motion to reopen because he did not demonstrate materially changed country conditions or prima 2 facie eligibility for relief. Neither the reports of generalized gang violence in Mexico nor the declaration from Diaz’s sister were “qualitatively different” from the evidence presented at his prior hearing. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945–46 (9th Cir. 2004)). While the articles submitted with his motion to reopen confirm that “Mexico saw its most killings in decades in 2017,” Diaz offers no explanation why the incremental increase in generalized violence is material given the BIA’s earlier specific finding that Diaz cannot establish a nexus based on the “widespread lawless[ness] and violence afflicting Mexico.” And the verbal threats …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals