N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ALC OLM ALAR

M O ADDY, AKA M a lc olm Ala rm o King, Pe t i tione r, v. M ERR IC K B . GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. Nos. 18-70018 19-70880 Age n c y No. A092-578-405 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 April 15, 2021 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER , R AW LINSON, a

nd B ADE, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r M a lc olm

Ala rm o Addy is a

native and c itiz e n of Libe ria . He pe titions for re vie w of two de c isions from the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) de ny ing m otions to re ope n his im m igration proc e e dings. W e have 

# FIL ED APR 22 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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).jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a)(1). R e vie w ing for a n a buse of disc re tion, we dism iss thepe tition for re v i e w in No. 18-70018 a n d de ny the pe tition for re vie w in No. 19-70880. S

e e Aguilar Fe r

min v . Barr , 958 F.3d 887, 892 (9th C i r. 2020) (a pply ing a n a buse of disc re tion sta

nda rd of re vie w). 1. W e dism iss Pe titione r’ s pe tition for re vie w of the B IA de c ision da te d De c e m b e r 22, 2017, de ny ing Pe titione r’ s m otion re que sting theB IA to sua sponte re ope n his im m igration proc e e dings for a djustm e nt of sta tus. Pe titione r doe s not a sse rt tha t the B IA’ s de nia l wa s pre m ise d on “ l e ga l or c onstitutiona l e rror.” Bonilla v . Ly nc h , 840 F.3d 575, 586-88 (9th C ir. 2016), a s ame nde d (re c ogniz ing that while the B IA’ s sua

sponte a uthority is ge ne ra lly

not subje c t to judic i a l re vie w, we have “ jurisdic tion to re vie w [B IA] de c isions de ny ing sua sponte re ope ning for the l im ite d purpose of re vie w ing the re a soning be hind thede c isions for le ga l or c onstitutiona

l e rror.” ) (ita lic s om itte d). R athe r, he ba se s his c ha lle nge on the B IA’ s “ de pa

rture from se ttle d pra c tic e .” Lona v . Barr , 958 F.3d 1225, 1236-37 (9th C ir. 2020) (re

je c ting depa

rture from

a “ se ttle d c ourse ” a s a

ba sis for jurisdic tion ove r the B IA’ s de nia l of sua sponte re lie f). 2. The im

m igrat ion c ourt wa s not deprive d of jurisdic tion ove r Pe titione r’ s im m igration proc e e dings in No. 19-70880 due to his Notic e to Appe a

r la c king the date and tim e of a

ppe aranc e . Se e Aguilar Fe rmin , 958 F.3d a t 895 (holding tha

t 2“ the la c k of tim e , date , a nd pla c e ” in a notic e to a

ppe ar “ did not de

p rive the im m igration c ourt of jurisdic t ion” whe n tha t inform ation wa s subse que ntly provide d a

nd pe rm itte d a

n a ppe aranc e ). 3. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion whe n de ny ing Pe titione r’ s m otion to re ope n ba se d on c ha

nge d c ountry

c onditions. Se eRodrigue z v . Garland

, 990 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th C ir. 2021) (e xpla ining tha t to support “ a

m otion to re ope n ba se d on c ha nge d c ountry

c onditions,”

a pe titione r “ m

ust produc e [m at e ria l] e vide nc e that c ountry c onditions ha

ve c ha nge d,” whic h wa s not “ ava ila ble pre viously ,” and

“ would e s ta

blish prim a

fa c ie e ligibility

for the re l ie f sought” ) (c ita tions, a lte ra tions, a

nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d). The B IA re a sona bly c onc lude d that c ountry c onditions in Libe

ria with re spe c t to thetre at

m e nt of pe o ple in the LGB TQ c om

m unity a nd in theAm e ric o-Libe rian c om m unity ge ne ra l ly , or a s re late d to his fa

m ily , ha ve not m ate ria lly

c ha nge d. Se e id. at

1208 (e xpla ining tha

t

“ to re ope n proc e e d ings ba se d on c ha nge d c o untry

c onditions, Pe titione r m

u st c arry a he a vy burde n to de m onstra

te qua lita tive ly diffe re nt e vide n c e tha

t a ddre sse s two points in tim

e : the tim e of the pe titione r’ s pre vious he aring, a nd the tim e of the m otion to re o pe n ” ) (a lte rations a nd inte rna l quota

t ion m arks om itte d). R e c e nt c ountry

re p orts be lie Pe titione r’ s c la i m tha t he fe ars ha

rm a s a m e m b e r of the m e dia . The se re ports indic ate tha t the m e dia

is a c tive and “ a

ble to 3e xpre s s a

wide va rie ty of vie ws,” and tha

t a ny ha ra ssm e nt dire c te d a ga inst m e dia wa s ba se d

on politic a l opinion, with no indic ation of ha ra ssm e nt for a dvoc ating a ga inst drug a

buse , whic h Pe titione r de sc ribe s a s his foc us. The B IA the re fore did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Pe titione r’ s m otion, be c a use c ountry c onditions in Libe ria we re not qua lita

tive ly diffe re nt be t

we e n 2011 a

nd 2019. Se e id. at 1209- 11; se e also N

a jmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 989 (9th C ir. 2010) (de ny ing pe tition be c a

use c urre nt c o untry

c onditions were not “ qua lita tive ly diffe re nt” from the t im e of Pe titione r’ s a sy lum he aring). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WIN NO . 18-70018 DISM ISSE D AND PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W IN NO . 19-70880 DE N IE D.

4