Felix Colindres-Trujillo v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 10 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FELIX ARMANDO COLINDRES- No. 18-73098
TRUJILLO,
Agency No. A098-402-897
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Felix Armando Colindres-Trujillo (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of El
Salvador, petitions this court for review of the denial by the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) of his motion to reopen seeking to challenge the underlying
*
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).
denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and
we deny the petition in part and vacate and remand in part.
We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion.
Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 2020). “A decision is an
abuse of discretion if it is ‘arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.’” Id. (quoting
Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016)).
1. A motion to reopen based on changed country conditions requires the
movant to:
(1) produce evidence that conditions have changed in the
country of removal, (2) demonstrate that the evidence is
material, (3) show that the evidence was not available
and would not have been discovered or presented at the
previous hearing, and (4) demonstrate that the new
evidence, when considered together with the evidence
presented at the original hearing, would establish prima
facie eligibility for the relief sought.
Silva v. Garland, 993 F.3d 705, 718 (9th Cir. 2021) (citing 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(1)). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s
motion to reopen because he failed to demonstrate that he is prima facie eligible
for relief. “To establish a prima facie case, the movant must adduce evidence that,
along with the facts already in the record, ‘will support the desired finding if
evidence to the contrary is disregarded.’” Id. (quoting Maroufi v. I.N.S., 772 F.2d
597, 599 (9th Cir. 1985)). Petitioner supports his motion to reopen with evidence
2
of gang violence in El Salvador. However, this evidence, along with Petitioner’s
testimony about being kidnapped for ransom, establishes only a fear of generalized
violence and crime, which is insufficient to support a finding that Petitioner has a
likelihood of persecution or a clear probability of persecution on account of a
protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).
Similarly, such generalized evidence does not adequately support a finding that,
more likely than not, Petitioner would be tortured if returned to El Salvador. See
Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010).
2. The BIA also denied sua sponte reopening. We may review a denial
of sua sponte reopening “for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind
the decisions for legal or constitutional error.” Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 588. In
denying sua sponte reopening, the BIA relied on Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I.
& N. Dec. 462 (A.G. 2018), for the conclusion that “immigration judges have no
inherent authority to terminate or dismiss removal proceedings” and may only
terminate or dismiss proceedings for reasons “expressly set out in the relevant
regulations or where DHS has failed to sustain the charges of removability.” Id. at
463. After the date of the BIA’s decision, the Attorney General overruled Matter
of S-O-G- & F-D-B- in its entirety. See Matter of Coronado Acevedo, 28 I. & N.
Dec. 648, 651 (A.G. 2022). Because the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening in
this case “relied on an incorrect legal premise,” we remand to the BIA “so it may
3
exercise its authority against the correct ‘legal background.’” Bonilla, 840 F.3d at
588.
DENIED in part; VACATED and REMANDED in part.
4