Rosario Anton v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 592 F. App'x 655 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSARIO ANTON; MAYRA DOLORES No. 12-72070
MARTINEZ LEAL,
Agency Nos. A075-653-149
Petitioners, A095-317-278
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Rosario Anton and Mayra Dolores Martinez Leal, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial
of their 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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
to reopen, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny
the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners’ untimely
motion to reopen based on changed country conditions, where petitioners’ motion
failed to specifically identify any evidence presented to show that conditions in
Mexico had in fact changed from the time of their initial removal hearing. See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987 (requiring that evidence
of changed country conditions “be ‘qualitatively different’ from the evidence
presented at the previous hearing”) (citation omitted). We reject petitioners’
contentions that the BIA applied the incorrect legal standard and/or failed to
adequately review the evidence. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990-91 (BIA
adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision); see also
Shooshtary v. INS, 39 F.3d 1049, 1051 (9th Cir. 1994) (“[T]he preciseness we
require of the Board depends upon the preciseness of the proof offered by the
petitioner.”). Finally, we reject petitioners’ contention that the BIA erred by
failing to make a finding regarding whether petitioners are members of a particular
social group. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986 (BIA may deny a motion to reopen
on any of at least three separate grounds).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 12-72070