Lidia Arias-Mercado v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIDIA RAQUEL ARIAS-MERCADO, No. 21-70490
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-815-324
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2022**
Seattle, Washington
Before: NGUYEN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Lidia Raquel Arias Mercado petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to reopen her removal
proceedings based on changed country conditions in El Salvador. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
*
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 “critical question” is “whether circumstances have changed sufficiently
[in the country of removal] that a petitioner who previously did not have a
legitimate claim for [relief] now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.”
Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the evidence
supporting the motion to reopen must be “qualitatively different” than the evidence
available at the time of the petitioner’s previous hearing. Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d
1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Malty, 381 F.3d at 945).
Here, the evidence does not reflect a change in Salvadorian gangs’ targeting
of the families of their victims. And, at the time of her prior hearing, Arias
Mercado’s family had faced extortionate demands and accompanying death threats
from gang members that are qualitatively similar to those she now cites as
evidence of changed conditions. While a “significant quantitative difference” in
country conditions may be sufficient to show a qualitative difference, the evidence
in this case falls short. Etemadi v. Garland, 12 F.4th 1013, 1030 (9th Cir. 2021).
Therefore, the BIA’s determination that Arias Mercado failed to demonstrate
changed circumstances in El Salvador material to her claim for relief was not
“arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.” Chandra v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1034, 1036
(9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Azanor v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1013, 1018 (9th Cir. 2004)). 1
1
The BIA sufficiently considered Arias Mercado’s arguments and evidence in
reaching its determination. While the BIA’s decision must reflect consideration of
the issues raised before it and provide sufficient explanation for review, it is not
2
Because Arias Mercado cannot demonstrate the requisite change in country
conditions, we need not reach the BIA’s alternate holding that she failed to
establish prima facie eligibility for relief.
PETITION DENIED.
required to “write an exegesis on every contention.” Agonafer v. Sessions, 859
F.3d 1198, 1206–07 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807
n.6 (9th Cir. 2004)).
3