Castillo Estrada v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 21-825, 04/12/2023, DktEntry: 31.1, Page 1 of 3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 12 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Guillermina Castillo Estrada, No. 21-825
Agency No.
Petitioner, A076-362-490
v.
MEMORANDUM*
Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: BRESS and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSEN,*** District
Judge.
Guillermina Castillo Estrada, a national of Mexico, petitions for review of
a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying her motion to reopen
removal proceedings to pursue asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
*
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 Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for
the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
Case: 21-825, 04/12/2023, DktEntry: 31.1, Page 2 of 3
the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review for abuse of discretion the
BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1203
(9th Cir. 2017). Having jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we deny the
petition.
Because this is Castillo Estrada’s second motion to reopen and was filed
more than 90 days after entry of a final order of removal, it ordinarily would be
time- and number-barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7). But these limitations do
not bar a motion to reopen to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT
relief based on a material change in country conditions in the country of
removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3); Agonafer, 859 F.3d at 1203–04. To prevail
on a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions, a movant must
show, among other things, prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. Toufighi
v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008). Prima facie eligibility requires a
“reasonable likelihood” that she has satisfied the statutory requirements for
relief. Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th Cir. 2013).
1. The BIA correctly concluded that Castillo Estrada did not establish
prima facie eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal under Section
241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). She failed to make a
prima facie showing that membership in a particular social group—here, her
family—or any other statutorily protected ground would be at least “a reason”
for any persecution she might face upon removal to Mexico. See Barajas-
Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017). The letters Castillo
2
Case: 21-825, 04/12/2023, DktEntry: 31.1, Page 3 of 3
Estrada provided describing attacks on her sister and nephew did not show that
these attacks were motivated by family membership or that Castillo Estrada
would be persecuted based on her family membership upon return to Mexico.
2. The BIA did not err in concluding that Castillo Estrada did not
show prima facie eligibility for CAT relief. Castillo Estrada’s evidence,
including the brief statements regarding past attacks against her family members
for unspecified reasons, did not “show that there is a reasonable likelihood that
she will be able to show that it is more likely than not she will be tortured if
returned to [Mexico].” See Kaur v. Garland, 2 F.4th 823, 837 (9th Cir. 2021).
Because Castillo Estrada did not show prima facie eligibility for relief,
the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying her motion to reopen.
PETITION DENIED.
3