Teresa Guevara Trigueros v. Merrick Garland

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MAR 14 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TERESA GUEVARA TRIGUEROS, No. 16-73554 AKA Mercedes Garcia Garcia, AKA Teresa Jesus Guevara, AKA Nancy Agency No. A088-895-326 Gutierrez Wenees,

Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 10, 2022** Pasadena, California

Before: IKUTA, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Teresa Guevara Trigueros seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings to

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. reapply for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Guevara Trigueros failed to demonstrate that country conditions in Honduras had materially changed from her 2013 hearing before the Immigration Judge (IJ) to her 2016 motion to reopen. Although she presented new evidence that her family continues to receive extortion threats, such evidence was not “qualitatively different from the evidence presented at the previous hearing.” Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).1 Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in holding that Guevara Trigueros failed to demonstrate a material change in country conditions sufficient to satisfy the timeliness exception for a motion to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996–97 (9th Cir. 2008); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

Moreover, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in holding that Guevara Trigueros failed to make a prima facie showing that she is eligible for withholding of removal. Guevara Trigueros failed to demonstrate a nexus between persecution by the criminals who harmed her family and any protected ground because “[a]n alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).2

Because Guevara Trigueros’s motion to reopen did not address her claim for protection under CAT, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron, 358 F.3d at 677. Although Guevara Trigueros moved the BIA to reopen proceedings sua sponte, she does not challenge the BIA’s denial of that motion on appeal and therefore has forfeited that claim. Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1165 n.5 (9th Cir. 2008).

DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.