Villeda-Mejia v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 25, 2024
• Docket: 23-3420
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 25 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUDY VILLEDA-MEJIA, No. 23-3420 Agency No. Petitioner, A088-367-378 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted November 20, 2024** Seattle, Washington

Before: McKEOWN, GOULD, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Rudy Alexander Villeda-Mejia is a citizen of Honduras. He petitions for

review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which denied

his motion to reopen proceedings seeking protection under the Convention Against

* 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). Torture (“CAT”) based on changed circumstances in Honduras. We review 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). We deny the

petition.

To prevail on a motion to reopen on the basis of changed country conditions,

a petitioner must: “(1) produce evidence that conditions have changed in the

country of removal; (2) demonstrate that the evidence is material; (3) show that the

evidence was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the

previous hearings; and (4) ‘demonstrate that the new evidence, when considered

together with the evidence presented at the original hearing, would establish prima

facie eligibility for the relief sought.’” Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1204

(9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008)).

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).

Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Villeda-Mejia’s motion

to reopen. As the BIA noted, the evidence that Villeda-Mejia submitted in support

of his motion to reopen, which consisted of an academic article and a news article,

“reflects a continuation of the crime, violence and police corruption previously

considered by the Immigration Judge during the merits hearing.” Because this

2 23-3420 evidence “simply recounts previous conditions presented at a previous hearing,” it

is insufficient to show a change in country conditions. Agonafer, 859 F.3d at 1204.

PETITION DENIED.

3 23-3420