Ariel Mendoza-Garcia v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 10 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARIEL MENDOZA-GARCIA, No. 21-70606 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-321-012 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 7, 2023** Portland, Oregon Before: M. SMITH, FORREST, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. Ariel Mendoza-Garcia petitions this court to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his motion to reopen based on alleged changed country conditions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). See Oyeniran v. Holder, 672 F.3d 800, 805–06 (9th Cir. 2012). 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 parties are familiar with the facts and the standard of review is well- established. We review a denial of a motion to reopen on account of alleged changed country conditions for abuse of discretion. Id. at 806. When the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) invokes 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) to summarily affirm the Immigration Judge (IJ) without an opinion, we review the IJ’s decision as if it were that of the BIA. Alvarado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 2014). The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied Mendoza-Garcia’s motion to reopen. To reopen based on changed country conditions, a movant must, among other things, “(1) produce evidence that conditions have changed in the country of removal,” and “(2) demonstrate that the evidence is material.” Silva v. Garland, 993 F.3d 705, 718 (9th Cir. 2021); see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). A movant “is always required to demonstrate changed country conditions, but may also present evidence of changed personal circumstances to the extent that is helpful to ‘establish the materiality’ of the changed country conditions.” Rodriguez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Chandra v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1034, 1037 (9th Cir. 2014)). Here, Mendoza-Garcia presented evidence only of changed personal circumstances— that, after his original proceedings before an IJ, a cartel threatened him and his family. While Mendoza-Garcia also submitted Mexico’s 2017 country report, that report shows only that cartel violence remains a serious problem in Mexico, not 2 that such violence has worsened since Mendoza-Garcia’s original immigration proceedings. See id. (denying petition for review because movant’s evidence “only provided an analysis of current Mexico country conditions”).1 PETITION DENIED. 1 Because Mendoza-Garcia failed to show changed country conditions, we need not reach the BIA’s alternative grounds for denying the motion to reopen: that Mendoza-Garcia failed to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or Convention Against Torture relief. 3