Ricardo Garcia-Mendoza v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 17 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICARDO GARCIA-MENDOZA, No. 19-71951 Petitioner, Agency No. A077-118-907 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 10, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: CALLAHAN, R. NELSON, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Ricardo Garcia-Mendoza (Garcia) seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen a final order of removal. We review the BIA’s denial of Garcia’s motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and will reverse only when it acts “arbitrarily, irrationally or contrary to law.” * 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). Yeghiazaryan v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968, 972 (9th Cir. 2004), amended by 404 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2005)). We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We deny the petition. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), an alien may file a motion to reopen his case within 90 days of the final removal order. Garcia does not dispute that he filed his motion to reopen more than 90 days after the final removal order. Rather, he argues that he qualifies for an exception to this deadline because, due to changed circumstances in Mexico, he now can show a reasonable likelihood of success on his claims for relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Rodriguez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1205, 1210 (stating that a petitioner may “present evidence of changed personal circumstances to the extent that is helpful ‘to establish the materiality’ of . . . changed country conditions”) (quoting Chandra v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1034, 1037 (9th Cir. 2014)). 1. Garcia argues that the BIA erred in holding that he could not make out a prima facie case of eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal based on changed circumstances in his native Mexico. Specifically, he points to evidence showing human rights abuses including “involvement by police, military, and other state officials, sometimes in coordination with criminal organizations, in unlawful killings, disappearances, and torture,” and an increase in the number of homicides. 2 He also claims that he fears returning to Mexico on account of threats to his family due to their ownership of land and a business and on account of his familial ties with his brother, who has engaged in criminal activities in Mexico and has previously assumed Garcia’s identity. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the harms to his family Garcia described do not rise to the level of persecution. See Korablina v. INS, 158 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 1998) (describing persecution as …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals