Ricardo Rodriguez v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 1 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO ERNESTO RODRIGUEZ, No. 14-73278
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-749-060
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 28, 2020**
Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Ernesto Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his motion to reopen removal
proceedings and to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider.
*
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).
Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for
review.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez’s motion to
reopen his removal proceedings. Rodriguez did not support his motion with
anything other than his counsel’s statements, no affidavits or evidentiary material
whatsoever. Moreover, he did not demonstrate why the evidence counsel
referenced could not have been discovered before or presented at his hearing. In
addition, he did not demonstrate that the evidence he sought to submit would likely
have changed the outcome of his case. See Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025
(9th Cir. 2008) (setting out the standard for a motion to reopen and noting that
petitioners who seek to reopen proceedings to pursue relief “bear a ‘heavy burden’
of proving that, if proceedings were reopened, the new evidence would likely
change the result in the case” (citation omitted)).
The agency also did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez’s motion
to reconsider, where his motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the IJ’s
prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(2).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-73278