Court Opinion

ID: 9892333
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 17:01:01.884505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:40.694160
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 23 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS SANCHEZ-MARTINEZ,                         No.   21-70425

                Petitioner,                      Agency No. A200-976-440

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted October 17, 2023**
                                San Francisco, California

Before: BEA, CHRISTEN, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

      Petitioner Carlos Sanchez-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to

reopen to pursue asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do

      *
             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).
not recount them here.

      We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s denial of

a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986

(9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition.

      1. The BIA denied the motion to reopen because it determined that Sanchez-

Martinez had failed to present material, new, previously unavailable evidence

regarding conditions in Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The failure to proffer

material, new, previously unavailable evidence provides independent grounds for

the BIA to deny a motion to reopen. Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986.

      2. The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Sanchez-

Martinez had failed to proffer evidence that was material. The evidence that

Sanchez-Martinez adduced—a personal declaration, a 2019 U.S. State Department

Mexico Human Rights Report, and a 2020 U.S. State Department Mexico Travel

Advisory—describes only “generalized conditions” of crime and violence in Mexico

that threaten the populace at large. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990. The evidence

lacks the “individualized relevancy” necessary to establish that Sanchez-Martinez’s

“predicament is appreciably different from the dangers faced by [his] fellow

citizens.” See id. at 989–90. Sanchez-Martinez has not presented the type of threats

to himself or to individuals in his proposed social groups—“Americanized” long-

term residents of the United States or imputed non-Mexican nationals or Mexican

                                         2
nationals with family in the United States—that this Court has held can suffice to

establish materiality. See Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945–46 (9th Cir. 2004);

Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 982–83 (9th Cir. 2005).

      3. Nor did the BIA abuse its discretion in determining that Sanchez-Martinez

failed to present evidence that was new and previously unavailable. At his initial

cancellation of removal merits hearing in August 2018, Sanchez-Martinez proffered

a 2016 U.S. State Department Mexico Human Rights Report that described violent

conditions in Mexico. The evidence that Sanchez-Martinez presented in support of

his motion to reopen describes substantially similar conditions and is not

“qualitatively different” from the Human Rights Report that Sanchez-Martinez

presented at his initial merits hearing. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987; Malty, 381

F.3d at 945–46. Moreover, Sanchez-Martinez did not proffer evidence of any new,

specific threats of violence while his appeal with the BIA was pending that could

give rise to a newfound fear of persecution. See Bhasin, 423 F.3d at 982–83.

Accordingly, the BIA acted within its discretion when it concluded that Sanchez-

Martinez’s evidence in support of his motion to reopen was not new and previously

unavailable.

      4. The BIA’s determination that Sanchez-Martinez failed to submit new,

previously unavailable, material evidence was sufficient grounds for it to deny

Sanchez-Martinez’s motion to reopen.        See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991–92.

                                        3
“[B]ecause [Petitioner] did not present previously unavailable, material evidence,

the Board was entitled to deny the motion solely on those grounds.” Id. at 992 n.2.

Therefore, we need not consider whether Sanchez-Martinez has made a prima facie

case that he is entitled to asylum or other relief.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                            4