N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
W ILTO FENESC AT,

Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-72643 Age n c y No. A209-865-222
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d June 8, 2022 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : GILM AN, *** IKUTA, a nd M ILLER , C irc uit Judge s . W ilto Fe ne sc at

se e ks re vie w of the de c ision of theB oa rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a ls (B IA) de ny ing his m otion to re ope n his re m ova l proc e e d ings a nd to 

# F IL ED JUN 16 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble R ona ld Le e Gilm a

n , Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U .S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Sixth C irc u it, sitting by de signa tion.re c o nside r the B IA’ s pre vious de c ision de ny ing his a dm inistra tive a ppe a l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(1). The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Fe ne sc at’ s m otion to re ope n (file d a lm ost two y e ars a fte r the ge ne ra lly a pplic a b le de a dline ) a s untim e l y . Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(7)(C )(i). Fe ne sc at fa ile d to show tha t he qua l ifie d for a

n
e xc e ption to the

a pplic a ble de a dline for c ha

nge d c ountry

c o nditions, se e id. § 1229a (c )(7)(C )(ii), be c a u s e Fe ne sc at ’ s c ha

nge in pe rsona l c irc um sta nc e s , na m e ly his m arria ge , did not c onstitute a c ha nge in c ountry

c onditions, s e e Rodrigue z v . Garland , 990 F.3d 1205, 1209–10 (9th C ir. 2021); se e also C handra v . Holde r , 751 F.3d 1034, 1037 (9th C ir. 2014). Furthe r, Fe n e sc at did not pre se nt a ny
e vide nc e of c ountry

c onditions in Ha

iti to the B IA. 1 The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Fe ne sc at’ s m otion to
re c o nside r the prior a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination. The B IA de nie d the m otion be c a use it wa s untim e ly

and, in thea lte rnative , be c a use it ra ise d only

argum e nts that the B IA ha d c onside re d

and re je c te d in its pre vious de c ision. Se e 8 C .F.R
. § 1003.2(b)(1)–(2). B e c a u se Fe ne sc at doe s not c ha lle nge e ithe r of the se

1 B e c a use the B IA did not e rr in de ny i ng the m o tion to re ope n a s untim e ly , we do not a ddre ss Fe n e sc at’ s a rgum e nts c onc e rning the B IA’ s a l te rnat ive re a s oning tha

t Fe ne sc at fa ile d to e sta

blish prim a

fa c ie e ligibility

for re l ie f a s a de rivative be ne fic ia

ry of his wife ’ s a sy lum a

pplic at ion. Se e Bonilla v . Ly nc h , 840 F.3d 575, 583 (9th C ir. 2016). 2dispositive

grounds for de ny ing the m otion, wedo not c onside r his re m a ining
argum e nts. Fina lly , be c a

use the B IA did not re ly on the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation in re a c hing its c onc lusion, Matte r of F-S-N

- , 28 I. & N. De c . 1 (B IA 2020), is not a

pplic a ble , a nd we the re fore re

j e c t Fe ne sc at’ s argum e nt tha t the B IA’ s de c ision wa s c ontra ry to tha t de c i sion. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

3