Monzon Villatoro v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 18, 2025
• Docket: 23-2055
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 18 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ESVIN MONZON VILLATORO, No. 23-2055 Agency No. Petitioner, A095-811-364 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted February 13, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Esvin Monzon Villatoro is a native and citizen of Guatemala. He

seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his untimely

motion to reopen removal proceedings. “We review a BIA ruling on a motion to

reopen for an abuse of discretion, and will reverse the 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). only if the Board acted arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law.” Martinez-

Hernandez v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Maravilla

Maravilla v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 855, 857 (9th Cir. 2004)). We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny Monzon Villatoro’s petition for review.

The BIA concluded that Monzon Villatoro could not prevail on his time-

barred motion to reopen on the basis of changed country conditions. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1203–04 (9th Cir. 2017).

The “changed country conditions” exception permits an otherwise time-barred

motion to reopen when the petitioner can, inter alia, “demonstrate that . . . new

evidence, when considered together with the evidence presented at the original

hearing, would establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought.” Agonafer, 859

F.3d at 1204 (quotation omitted).

The BIA reasonably determined that Monzon Villatoro’s evidence of gang

violence and crime in Guatemala did “not establish a material change in country

conditions in Guatemala since [Villatoro] was denied relief and protection by the

Immigration Judge on July 21, 2015.” And the BIA reasonably determined that this

alleged new evidence, when considered with the evidence Monzon Villatoro had

previously submitted, would not establish prima facie eligibility for his asylum or

withholding of removal claims nor for his claim for protection under the Convention

Against Torture (CAT). The BIA found that Monzon Villatoro’s fear of general

2 23-2055 criminality in Guatemala did not establish a nexus to a statutorily protected ground,

precluding his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Zetino v. Holder,

622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Similarly, it found that Monzon Villatoro’s

evidence of generalized crime and gang violence in Guatemala was insufficient to

show that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the

acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600

F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in

denying Monzon Villatoro’s untimely motion to reopen based on changed country

conditions.

DENIED.

3 23-2055