Ariel Mendoza-Garcia v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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