Tenzee Lama-Sherpa v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TENZEE LAMA-SHERPA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71198
Agency No. A200-941-944
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted July 11, 2017
San Francisco, California
Before: BEA and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LYNN,** Chief District Judge.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denied Petitioner Tenzee Lama-
Sherpa’s motion to reopen immigration proceedings. Lama-Sherpa petitions this
Court for review of the denial by the BIA, which held that Lama-Sherpa did not
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Barbara M. G. Lynn, Chief United States District
Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
FILED
SEP 7 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
satisfy his burden to show the new evidence would likely change the result in his
case. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
We review the BIA’s decision to deny a motion to reopen for abuse of
discretion. Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601 (9th Cir. 2006). This Court
defers to the BIA’s decision to deny reopening unless it is “arbitrary, irrational, or
contrary to law.” Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). Aliens
who seek to reopen proceedings “bear a ‘heavy burden’ of proving that if
proceedings were reopened, the new evidence would likely change the result.”
Young Sun Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008).
Lama-Sherpa argues an attack on his father by the Maoists is evidence of
changed country conditions in Nepal that would lead to a different result in his
case. However, “an individual who can relocate safely within his home country
ordinarily cannot qualify for asylum.” Gonzalez-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d
995, 999 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 18 (2002)). The
threats made against Lama-Sherpa and the physical violence against his father
occurred in the city of Jiri. Lama-Sherpa left Jiri for Kathmandu, where no
violence or threat of violence was made against him. Lama-Sherpa’s parents also
moved to and lived in Kathmandu for more than seven years, and they faced no
violence or threat of violence there.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Lama-Sherpa provides no evidence that he could not reside unharmed in
Kathmandu or elsewhere in Nepal, other than Jiri. There is also no evidence
showing a material change in conditions in Nepal since the Immigration Judge’s
decision. Therefore, Lama-Sherpa did not meet his burden of proof that the new
evidence would change the result in his case, a necessary prerequisite to reopening.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --