Court Opinion

ID: 9374327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 20:00:48.505965+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:46.685386
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTHA GARCIA-LOPEZ,                            No.    17-70935

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A070-916-156

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

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Martha Garcia-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to

reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of

      *
             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).
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,

986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

      The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia-Lopez’s untimely

motion to reopen based on changed country conditions where she failed to

establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i),

(c)(7)(C)(ii); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2016) (BIA

may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for the

relief sought); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an

applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”);

Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be

free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang

members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). We reject as unsupported by the

record Garcia-Lopez’s contention that the BIA erred in its analysis of her motion.

      In light of this disposition, we do not reach Garcia-Lopez’s remaining

contentions regarding her eligibility for relief. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d

532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to decide issues unnecessary to

the results they reach).

      We generally lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen

proceedings sua sponte. See Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 2020)

                                          2                                       17-70935
(denial of sua sponte reopening is committed to agency discretion and

unreviewable).

      We also lack jurisdiction to consider whether Garcia-Lopez’s case warrants

a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688

F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012).

      We do not consider the materials Garcia-Lopez references in her opening

brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955,

963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                          3                                   17-70935