Maria Rodriguez-Fregoso v. Merrick Garland

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 20, 2022
Docket15-72895
StatusUnpublished

This text of Maria Rodriguez-Fregoso v. Merrick Garland (Maria Rodriguez-Fregoso v. Merrick Garland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Maria Rodriguez-Fregoso v. Merrick Garland, (9th Cir. 2022).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 20 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA TRINDAD RODRIGUEZ- No. 15-72895 FREGOSO, Agency No. A201-289-483 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted May 17, 2022**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Maria Trinidad Rodriguez-Fregoso, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her

motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen.

* 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). Oyeniran v. Holder, 672 F.3d 800, 806 (9th Cir. 2012). We deny the petition for

review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Fregoso’s motion

to reopen where she failed to demonstrate that the evidence she sought to offer was

not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former

hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Guzman v. I.N.S., 318 F.3d 911, 913 (9th

Cir. 2003) (no abuse of discretion where evidence was previously available and

capable of discovery prior to former hearing).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 15-72895

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Oyeniran v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
672 F.3d 800 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Maria Rodriguez-Fregoso v. Merrick Garland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maria-rodriguez-fregoso-v-merrick-garland-ca9-2022.