Albertina Ruiz Rodas v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 14 2023
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBERTINA RUIZ RODAS, No. 21-70510
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-316-073
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 10, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, TALLMAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Albertina Ruiz Rodas, a citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying her motion to reopen.
Her motion claimed ineffective assistance of counsel as grounds for equitable
*
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).
tolling of the 90-day limitation period. The BIA found that even if her prior
counsel’s performance had been deficient, she had failed to show prejudice. See
Ramirez Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2016); Salazar-Gonzalez
v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 917, 921 (9th Cir. 2015).
The record supports the BIA's conclusion that Petitioner could not have
prevailed on her asylum claim because her asylum application was time barred as
filed six years after her entry, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), no exception to the
time bar applied, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(d), and she was not entitled to asylum
as a matter of discretion given her prior false statements to immigration authorities
and crime, Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir. 2004). Petitioner's
asylum and withholding of removal claims also fail because regardless whether
experts could have demonstrated that her proposed particular social group had
social visibility (now referred to as "social distinction"), she did not provide
evidence that she was part of the group, or that she was harmed on that account.
See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854 (9th Cir. 2009), abrogated on other
grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (en
banc). Nor was there any showing that the El Salvadoran government was
unwilling or unable to control her persecutor, as required for protection under the
2
Convention Against Torture. See B.R. v. Garland, 26 F.4th 827, 844 (9th Cir.
2022).
There was also no abuse of discretion in the denial of cancellation of
removal, since the exception to the filing deadline for motions to reopen based on
changed country conditions does not apply to cancellation of removal. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3). The motion to reopen also claimed changed country
conditions, but the new evidence did not show that the conditions in El Salvador
had worsened. See Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1137-39 (9th Cir. 2016).
PETITION DENIED.
3