Court Opinion

ID: 9839947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 18:01:15.557657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:43.480716
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 14 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUDY AROLDO MONTERROSO,                         No. 21-600
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A071-569-981
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted August 23, 2023**
                              Pasadena, California

Before: BERZON, RAWLINSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Rudy Aroldo Monterroso (Monterroso), a native and citizen of Guatemala,

petitions for review of a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

denying his motion to reopen immigration proceedings. Monterroso contends that

      *
             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).
changed country conditions entitle him to relief under the Convention Against

Torture (CAT). “We review the denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of

discretion and reverse only if the BIA’s decision was arbitrary, irrational, or

contrary to law.” Silva v. Garland, 993 F.3d 705, 717–18 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted). We generally have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252 to review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen, but we have no

jurisdiction to review a decision whether to sua sponte grant relief, except for

“legal or constitutional error.” Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 2020)

(citation omitted).

        1.     The BIA did not abuse its discretion when concluding that Monterroso

failed to demonstrate changed country conditions that would excuse the

untimeliness of his motion to reopen.1 See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Monterroso

bore the burden of “produc[ing] evidence that conditions have changed in

[Guatemala]” since his removal hearing in 2012. Silva, 993 F.3d at 718. The

documents submitted by Monterroso do not meet his burden.

        Monterroso argued that he is more likely than not to be tortured in

Guatemala because of his tattoos and former gang affiliation. But the article

Monterroso included with his motion to reopen primarily discusses conditions in El

Salvador rather than Guatemala. Additionally, the 2016 and 2017 country reports

1
    Monterroso does not dispute the finding that his motion is untimely.

                                          2                                   21-600
do not establish an increased likelihood that Monterroso or his children will be

targeted by gangs, but instead, reflect a continuation of the generalized crime and

corruption present in 2012. Accordingly, the evidence Monterroso proffered does

not show that the circumstances have materially changed to excuse the untimely

filing. See id.

        2.     Monterroso’s contention that the BIA legally erred by failing to

consider all relevant factors lacks merit. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588

(9th Cir. 2016), as amended. Contrary to Monterroso’s assertions, the BIA

acknowledged the existence of Monterroso’s family, expressly mentioning that

Monterroso submitted “[his] children’s birth certificates” and that his “children

were born in 2001 and 2002.” The BIA also noted that it considered Monterroso’s

written statement, which indicated that Monterroso had not been involved with

gangs since 2000. Thus, the BIA’s explanation of its decision was sufficient. See

Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The BIA does not have

to write an exegesis on every contention. . . .”) (citation and alterations omitted).

        PETITION DENIED.2

2
    The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

                                         3                                     21-600