Marco Galdino v. Loretta E. Lynch , 603 F. App'x 608 ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 15 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
MARCO ANTONIO GALDINO, No. 11-71865
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-375-403
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Marco Antonio Galdino petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his second motion to reopen his removal
proceedings to permit him to reapply for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The BIA did not abuse its
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
discretion in denying the motion. See Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th
Cir. 2008).
There is no dispute that Galdino’s motion was time and number barred. See
8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7). Therefore, Galdino had to establish an exception to the bar
by demonstrating that there were changed country conditions in Brazil giving rise
to his prima facie eligibility for aylum, withholding of removal and relief under
CAT. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Galdino failed to make this showing. The
evidence submitted with Galdino’s second motion to reopen did not establish that
circumstances materially worsened (since Galdino’s merit hearing in 2006) in
Brazil, generally or in a manner relevant to Galdino’s claims. See Fakhry v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Changed circumstances are those
which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum.” (internal quotation
marks omitted)); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008). The BIA
also adequately addressed the evidence and issues before it. See Feng Gui Lin v.
Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2009) (the BIA “need not expressly refute on
the record every single piece of evidence”). Thus, the denial of Galdino’s second
motion to reopen was not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Singh v. INS,
295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2