The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order. The court upheld the denial of a third motion to reopen based on a lack of sufficient evidence regarding changed country conditions and eligibility for relief.
Graciela Pulido-Chavez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying her third motion to reopen. She sought to reopen her removal proceedings based on changed country conditions in Mexico and alleged fears of persecution and torture.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the Board of Immigration Appeals denial for abuse of discretion and factual findings for substantial evidence. It found the record lacked evidence of conditions existing at the time of the removal order, failing to show circumstances changed sufficiently to warrant reopening. Even assuming changed conditions, the court found the petitioner feared only generalized violence rather than targeted persecution on a protected ground. The court also found substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the petitioner could safely relocate within Mexico and failed to meet the higher standard for protection under the Convention Against Torture.
What it means going forward
The denial of the petition for review leaves the Board of Immigration Appeals order denying the third motion to reopen in effect, preventing the petitioner from re-opening her removal proceedings based on the submitted evidence.
