Opinion
20-73199
11-09-2022
ARMANDO GONZALEZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted November 7, 2022 [**] Pasadena, California
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A200-156-408
Before: PARKER, [***] KOH, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Petitioner Armando Gonzalez-Gonzalez (also known as Omar Estrada Fuentes), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision denying his motion to reopen as untimely. We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Sanchez Rosales v. Barr, 980 F.3d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 2020). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Because Petitioner did not file his motion to reopen within 90 days of the BIA's 2019 decision, his motion is barred, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), unless he can demonstrate that it is "based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered," and "such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding," 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). See also Almaraz v. Holder, 608 F.3d 638, 640 (9th Cir. 2010). The BIA held that the evidence that Petitioner submitted was insufficient to show a material change in conditions or circumstances arising in the country of nationality.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it found that the Petitioner did not submit sufficient evidence to show changed country conditions. At the time of Petitioner's merits hearing in 2017, his daughter was 7 years old, and when Petitioner submitted his motion, she was 10. Petitioner argued that his daughter's pre-pubescent age, as well as his domestic partner's teenage daughter's age, would make them subject to increased gender and sexual violence in Mexico. He alleged that these were changed conditions meriting equitable tolling. Id. Petitioner submitted general reports and advisories on gender violence in Mexico, but the evidence did not demonstrate that the conditions were materially or qualitatively different than at the time of his merits hearing in 2017. See Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 ("The critical question is . . . whether circumstances have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution."). Further, a change in personal circumstances is not a change in "circumstances arising in the country of nationality." Almaraz, 608 F.3d at 640.
The BIA did not violate Petitioner's due process rights by refusing to address the merits of his motion. Due process does not require the BIA to address the merits of untimely motions to reopen where, as here, the petitioner fails to introduce sufficient evidence of changed country conditions. See Rodriguez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1205, 1208 (9th Cir. 2021) (observing that "the IJ could have denied Petitioner's motion to reopen on [the failure to introduce sufficient evidence of changed country conditions] alone").
The petition is DENIED.
[*] 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 Barrington D. Parker, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation.