Court Opinion

ID: 9370081
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-10 19:00:36.626397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:19.201896
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 10 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARIEL MENDOZA-GARCIA,                            No.   21-70606

                Petitioner,                      Agency No. A205-321-012

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

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted February 7, 2023**
                                   Portland, Oregon

Before: M. SMITH, FORREST, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

      Ariel Mendoza-Garcia petitions this court to review the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ denial of his motion to reopen based on alleged changed

country conditions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). See

Oyeniran v. Holder, 672 F.3d 800, 805–06 (9th Cir. 2012). We deny the petition.

      *
             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).
      The parties are familiar with the facts and the standard of review is well-

established. We review a denial of a motion to reopen on account of alleged

changed country conditions for abuse of discretion. Id. at 806. When the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) invokes 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) to summarily affirm

the Immigration Judge (IJ) without an opinion, we review the IJ’s decision as if it

were that of the BIA. Alvarado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 2014).

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied Mendoza-Garcia’s

motion to reopen. To reopen based on changed country conditions, a movant must,

among other things, “(1) produce evidence that conditions have changed in the

country of removal,” and “(2) demonstrate that the evidence is material.” Silva v.

Garland, 993 F.3d 705, 718 (9th Cir. 2021); see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8

C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). A movant “is always required to demonstrate changed

country conditions, but may also present evidence of changed personal

circumstances to the extent that is helpful to ‘establish the materiality’ of the

changed country conditions.” Rodriguez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir.

2021) (quoting Chandra v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1034, 1037 (9th Cir. 2014)). Here,

Mendoza-Garcia presented evidence only of changed personal circumstances—

that, after his original proceedings before an IJ, a cartel threatened him and his

family. While Mendoza-Garcia also submitted Mexico’s 2017 country report, that

report shows only that cartel violence remains a serious problem in Mexico, not

                                           2
that such violence has worsened since Mendoza-Garcia’s original immigration

proceedings. See id. (denying petition for review because movant’s evidence “only

provided an analysis of current Mexico country conditions”).1

      PETITION DENIED.

1
  Because Mendoza-Garcia failed to show changed country conditions, we need not
reach the BIA’s alternative grounds for denying the motion to reopen: that
Mendoza-Garcia failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding
of removal, or Convention Against Torture relief.

                                        3