NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAJVEER MUTTI, AKA Rajpal Singh,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 20

- 70798 Agency No. A097

- 744

- 673

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 7, 2021 * * Portland, Oregon Before: W. FLETCHER, IKUTA, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Rajveer Mutti (also known as Rajpal Singh) , a citizen of India, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his untimely and numerically barred motion to reopen his immigration proceedings, in which Mutti sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against

* 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

OCT 13 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Torture (CAT). We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and may grant relief only if the BIA’s decision was “ arbitrary, irrational, or contrary
to law. ” Agonafer v. Sessions , 859 F.3d 119 8, 1203 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Singh
v. INS , 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002)) . We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mutti’s second motion to reopen based on changed countr y conditions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). To show that he was entitled to reopening on that basis,
Mutti had to: (1) produce evidence that conditions have changed in the country of removal; (2) demonstrate that the evidence is material; (3) show that the evidence was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearings; and (4) “ demo nstrate that the new evidence, when considered together with the evidence presented at the original hearing, would establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. ” Agonafer , 859 F.3d at 1204 (quot ing Toufighi v. Mukasey , 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) ).

T he BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Mutti failed to show that conditions had materially worsened in India since his original immigration proceedings more than a decade earlier

. The BIA could reasonably conclude that
Mutti’ s participation in a rally in New York was a change in personal circumstances.
See Rodrigu ez v. Garland , 990 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing Chandra v.3

Holder , 751 F.3d 1034, 1037 (9th Cir. 2014) ( explaining that, although “personal
circumstances may be relevant to a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions,” a petitioner must “provid [e] sufficient evidence of related changed country conditions” ) )

. The BIA also reasonably concluded , based on an Immigration Judge’s prior
adverse credibil ity determination and the contradictions between Mutti’s motion to

reopen and his earlier testimony , that Mutti’s allegations of changed country
conditions were “inherently unbelievable.” See Agonafer , 859 F.3d at 1 203 (quoting
Limsico v. INS , 951 F.2d 210, 213 (9th Cir. 1991))

. Mutti had previously testified before an Immigration Judge that he was not politically active in India, w hich
contradicted Mutti’s new claim that he had been “abused, tortured, and threatened in the past for fighting for” h is beliefs

. Evidence in the record also supported the BIA’s determination that circumstances had not changed in ways material to Mutti
since his original removal proceedings. The materials Mutti submitted in connection with his motion to reopen did not r equire the BIA to conclude otherwise. For substantially the same reasons, t he BIA also did not abuse its discretion or apply an incorrect legal standard in concluding that Mutti had not established a prima facie case for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT protection. See Silva
v. Garland , 993 F.3d 705, 718

– 19 (9th Cir. 2021 ) . On this record, the BIA could conclude that Mutti did not meet his “heavy burden of proving that, if proceedings4

were reopened, the new evidence would likely change the result in the case.” Young Sun Shin v. Mukasey , 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (quotation s omitted). We reject Mutti’s argument that the BIA failed to consider his arguments or explain its decision

. The record does not support Mutti’s assertions

. We further reject Mutti’s argument that the BIA mischaracterized the evidence, because even assuming the BIA committed any such error, it was harmless.
PETITION DENIED.