Guadalupe Tarazon Gastelum v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 7, 2023
• Docket: 20-72556
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 7 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GUADALUPE TARAZON GASTELUM, No. 20-72556

Petitioner, Agency No. A209-138-852

v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 5, 2023** San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Guadalupe Tarazon Gastelum petitions pro se for review of a final order of

removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals after it (1) denied her motion

to remand, and (2) dismissed her appeal of an immigration judge’s order denying

her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

* 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). Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252,

and we deny the petition.

The BIA did not err in denying the motion to remand. Angov v. Lynch, 788

F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 2015). We review the denial of a motion to remand for an

abuse of discretion and will not disturb the Board’s decision unless it “acted

arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law.” Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,

986 (9th Cir. 2010). Petitioner had the heavy burden of showing that her new or

previously unavailable evidence would likely change the outcome of her case.

Angov v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 2015); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986.

We discern no abuse of discretion. While her brother’s killing did occur after the

immigration judge’s decision, petitioner failed to show how the new evidence

undermined each of the immigration judge’s independent reasons for rejecting her

claims for relief. For example, petitioner failed to show how the new evidence

would likely change the conclusions that her application for asylum was time-

barred, that her social groups were not cognizable, or that there was not evidence

that the Mexican government would consent or acquiesce to her torture by her ex-

partner.

Second, we reject petitioner’s argument that the BIA’s decision was

insufficiently reasoned. The BIA decision considers and rejects the arguments

Tarazon made in her motion to remand. Antonyan v. Holder, 642 F.3d 1250,

2 1256–57 (9th Cir. 2011).

Finally, to the extent that Tarazon directly challenges the immigration

judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT

protection independent of the adjudication of her motion to remand, she failed to

exhaust those challenges before the BIA. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Tarazon’s notice

of appeal states without elaboration that the immigration judge “erred as a matter

of law,” and she did not file a brief on appeal. We thus decline to review the

merits of the applications themselves. Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208

(9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).

PETITION DENIED.