Mirian Carcamo-Medrano v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 13 2023
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MIRIAN CARCAMO-MEDRANO, AKA                      No.   20-71084
    Miriam S. Carcamo,
    Agency No. A072-988-342
    Petitioner,
    v.                                              MEMORANDUM*
    MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
    General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted January 11, 2023**
    Pasadena, California
    Before: WATFORD, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
    Mirian Carcamo-Medrano, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
    review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her
    motion to reopen her removal proceedings to apply for asylum, withholding 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).
    removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We deny in part
    and dismiss in part the petition for review.
    The BIA denied Carcamo-Medrano’s untimely and numerically barred
    motion to reopen, concluding that Carcamo-Medrano’s new same-sex relationship
    was a change in personal circumstances and not a change in country conditions. In
    reaching that conclusion, the BIA reasoned that Carcamo-Medrano had not shown
    that country conditions in Honduras had materially worsened for gay people since
    her original deportation hearing in 1993. Because the record lacks evidence
    showing that country conditions for gay people in Honduras materially worsened
    between 1993 and 2019, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Carcamo-
    Medrano’s untimely and numerically barred motion to reopen. See Salim v. Lynch,
    
    831 F.3d 1133
    , 1137 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]he changed country conditions exception
    [to the 90-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen] is concerned with two points
    in time: the circumstances of the country at the time of the petitioner’s previous
    hearing, and those at the time of the motion to reopen.”); Chandra v. Holder, 
    751 F.3d 1034
    , 1037 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining that to qualify for the country-
    conditions exception to the deadline for a motion to reopen, a noncitizen may not
    “rel[y] solely on a change in personal circumstances”) (emphasis in original).
    To the extent Carcamo-Medrano argues that the BIA erred in not equitably
    tolling the deadline for filing her motion to reopen, Carcamo-Medrano did not
    2
    meaningfully present an equitable tolling argument to the BIA, so we lack
    jurisdiction to consider this argument. Amaya v. Garland, 
    15 F.4th 976
    , 986 (9th
    Cir. 2021) (holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review conclusory
    arguments not meaningfully presented to the BIA). To the extent Carcamo-
    Medrano is attempting to assert a due process argument, her argument is not raised
    with enough specificity for us to address it. See Rios v. Lynch, 
    807 F.3d 1123
    ,
    1125 n.1 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that a claim that is not addressed with any
    specificity in a brief is deemed abandoned); see also Grigoryan v. Barr, 
    959 F.3d 1233
    , 1240 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that a successful due process challenge
    requires establishing error and substantial prejudice).
    Petition DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-71084

Filed Date: 1/13/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/17/2023