NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN DANIEL CASTILLO,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 21

- 1023

Agency No.

A077

- 992

- 454

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 6, 2023 **

Honolulu

, Hawaii

Before: BADE, BUMATAY, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges

.

Juan Daniel Castillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (BIA) order denying his motion to reopen.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

The BIA denied Castillo’s motion to reopen his immigration proceedings

to apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) because he failed

* 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). 

# FILED

JUN 9 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 to provide evidence of country conditions in Mexico at the time of his final

hearing before the immigration judge in 2013

. To ra ise a motion to reopen based

on changed country conditions, a petition er must “ produce evidence that

conditions have changed in the country of removal

. ” Silva v. Garland , 993 F.3d

705, 718 (9th Cir. 2021) ; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii)

. This requirement

is “ concerned with two points in time: the circumstances of the country at the

time of the petitioner’s previous hearing, and those at the time of the motion to

reopen.” Salim v. Lynch , 831 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016). Because Castillo

on ly provided evidence from 2017, shortly before he filed his motion , the BIA

held he is not entitled to reopening.

O n appeal, Castillo d oes not address whether he failed to provide evidence

of country conditions in Mexico in 2013. Because he did not rais e this issue

, it is

waived. See United States v. Turchin , 21 F. 4th 1192, 1198

– 99 (9th Cir. 2022)

(arguments not raised in a party’s opening brief generally are waived). We thus

have no basis to conclude that the BIA abused its discretion in denying Castillo’s

motion to reopen

. See Salim , 831 F.3d at 1137 (standard of review for motions

to reopen). 1

1 We disagree with the government’s assertion that Castillo’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprives us of jurisdiction to review this petition. While a petition er cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement by bringing “ a general challenge ” to the BIA, a “ petitioner need not ... raise [his] precise argument” in

the administrative proceedings

. Alvarado v. Holde r , 759 F.3d 1121, 1128 ( 9th

Cir. 2014 ) ( citation omitted ). Although Castillo did not provide sufficient evidence of changed country conditions, we cannot say he did not raise the issue before the BIA. Moreover, t he Supreme Court recently clarified that, even if a3 Likewise, Castillo previously requested that the BIA exercise its su a sponte

authority to reopen, but he did not appeal that claim before this court. Any

challenge to the denial of sua sponte reopening is thus waived. See Turchin , 21

F.4th at 1198

– 99

.

PETITION DENIED.

petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies available as of right under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)

, this failure is not jurisdictional. See Santos

- Zacaria v.

Garland , No. 21

- 1436, 2023 WL 335625, at *2, 11 (May 11, 2023)

.