Morales Ramirez v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 9, 2023
• Docket: 21-1219
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 9 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GABINO MORALES RAMIREZ, No. 21-1219 Agency No. Petitioner, A200-242-344 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted October 19, 2023** Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS, District Judge.***

Gabino Morales Ramirez (“Morales Ramirez”), a native and citizen of

Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial

* 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 Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. of his motion to reopen proceedings for his applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s denial of a motion to

reopen for abuse of discretion. Chanda v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir.

2014). We deny the petition.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Morales Ramirez’s motion

to reopen because he failed to establish a material change in country conditions in

Mexico. See 8 U.S.C § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1138

(9th Cir. 2016). Morales Ramirez, a Christian minister, argues that conditions in

Mexico have changed materially since his last immigration hearing because

violence in the country has worsened generally and against Christian leaders.

Morales Ramirez relies on undifferentiated threats to the group as a whole and

draws the conclusion that “he will be targeted for persecution, tortured, or even

killed if he returns to Mexico.”

Although homicide rates have continued to rise in Mexico, evidence of this

generalized violence is largely the same as the evidence that Morales Ramirez

relied upon in his previous hearing and is insufficient to warrant reopening.

Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that evidence of

continued, although worsening, conditions was insufficient to warrant reopening).

Morales Ramirez has also failed to demonstrate that evidence regarding violence

2 21-1219 against religious leaders has “individualized relevancy” to his renewed claim for

relief. Id. Accordingly, the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings was not

“arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Singh v. Garland, 46 F.4th 1117, 1122

(9th Cir. 2022).

PETITION DENIED.

3 21-1219