Lara Moreno v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 9, 2024
• Docket: 23-1249
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 9 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA VIRGINIA LARA MORENO, No. 23-1249 Agency No. Petitioner, A208-958-051 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted December 5, 2024** Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, SANCHEZ, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Maria Virginia Lara Moreno is a citizen of Mexico. She petitions for review

of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motion to

reopen proceedings because of changed country conditions in Mexico. We review

* 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 BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, and we defer to the

BIA’s exercise of discretion “unless it acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to

law.” Reyes-Corado v. Garland, 76 F.4th 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation

omitted). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(a), and we deny the

petition.

To prevail, Moreno must, among other things, “(1) produce evidence that

conditions have changed in the country of removal; (2) demonstrate that the

evidence is material; [and] (3) show that the evidence was not available and would

not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearings.” Agonafer v.

Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1204 (9th Cir. 2017). The new evidence must be

“qualitatively different” from the evidence presented at the previous hearing. Malty

v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004).

Moreno’s newly submitted evidence consists of her declaration from 2021

alleging sexual abuse by her stepfather, a 2019 news article, and a 2019 country

conditions report. The 2019 country conditions report does not differ qualitatively

from the reports Moreno offered at her merits hearing. Moreno’s 2021 declaration

is duplicative of her 2016 declaration—both declarations recount sexual abuse by

Moreno’s stepfather. Finally, Moreno has not shown that the information offered in

the 2019 news article was previously unavailable or qualitatively different from the

2 23-1249 evidence presented at the merits hearing. Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its

discretion by denying the motion to reopen.

PETITION DENIED.1

1 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

3 23-1249