NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NATHALIA MATA-GARCILAZO, No. 19-70028 Petitioner, Agency No. A099-477-447 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 17, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: MURGUIA and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and LEFKOW,*** District Judge. Nathalia Mata-Garcilazo, a native and citizen of Nicaragua and a citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals * 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 Joan H. Lefkow, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. (“BIA”) denying her untimely motion to reopen removal proceedings. Mata- Garcilazo sought exceptions to the time limit based on ineffective assistance of counsel and changed country conditions. She also requested the BIA to exercise its authority to reopen her proceedings sua sponte based on exceptional circumstances and to consider her claim for cancellation of removal based on a change in law. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We deny the petition for review. Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we need not recount them here. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We review the BIA’s findings of fact for substantial evidence. Id.; Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1024 (9th Cir. 2004). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mata-Garcilazo’s motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Mata-Garcilazo did not establish changed country conditions in Nicaragua or Honduras that are material to any of her claims for relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) (requiring material evidence of changed circumstances to qualify for exception to the time and numerical limitations for motions to reopen); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987–90 (evidence must be “qualitatively different” to warrant reopening). The BIA found that the country conditions evidence “reflect[ed] political protests have taken place in Nicaragua for many years, including at the time of [Mata-Garcilazo’s] removal proceedings in 2 2011,” and that the recent political protests became less violent after the government agreed to engage in dialogue. The BIA also found “[t]he evidence show[ed] that gender violence in Honduras has been a concern for many years, particularly since 2009, and the government continues to take steps to control gang violence.” Accordingly, the BIA’s determinations were not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” See Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 989 (9th Cir. 2009) (upholding the BIA’s determination that the petitioner failed to establish a material change in country conditions where the decision was not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”) …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals