Demetrio Zarate v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 19 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEMETRIO FELIX ZARATE, No. 14-73834
Petitioner, Agency No. A073-717-843
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 17, 2020**
Before: SCHROEDER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Demetrio Felix Zarate, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second
motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo
*
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).
determinations of purely legal questions and claims of due process violations.
Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA denied Zarate’s motion for permissible reasons, including that he
failed to establish a prima facie case for the relief he sought and that he failed to
establish that he qualified for the exception to the filing deadline for motions to
reopen by introducing previously unavailable, material evidence. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Zarate v. Holder, 424 F. App’x 675, 676
(9th Cir. 2011) (denying Zarate’s first petition for review); Zarate v. Holder, 575
F. App’x 773 (9th Cir. 2014) (denying his second). For example, as the BIA
noted, Zarate did not introduce evidence persuasively showing “that the death of
his cousin was in any way related to [Zarate], or that the death was, in fact, a
murder.”
As for Zarate’s other contentions, the BIA did not err in finding that he did
not establish a prima facie case of membership in a cognizable social group. See
Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that “returning
Mexicans from the United States” did not constitute a particular social group). The
2 14-73834
record does not support Zarate’s contention that the BIA failed to consider the
evidence and arguments he presented.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-73834