Carlos Sanchez-Martinez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS SANCHEZ-MARTINEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-70425
Agency No. A200-976-440
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 17, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: BEA, CHRISTEN, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Carlos Sanchez-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to
reopen to pursue asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do
* 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).
FILED
OCT 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
not recount them here.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s denial of
a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986
(9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition.
1. The BIA denied the motion to reopen because it determined that Sanchez-
Martinez had failed to present material, new, previously unavailable evidence
regarding conditions in Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The failure to proffer
material, new, previously unavailable evidence provides independent grounds for
the BIA to deny a motion to reopen. Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986.
2. The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Sanchez-
Martinez had failed to proffer evidence that was material. The evidence that
Sanchez-Martinez adduced—a personal declaration, a 2019 U.S. State Department
Mexico Human Rights Report, and a 2020 U.S. State Department Mexico Travel
Advisory—describes only “generalized conditions” of crime and violence in Mexico
that threaten the populace at large. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990. The evidence
lacks the “individualized relevancy” necessary to establish that Sanchez-Martinez’s
“predicament is appreciably different from the dangers faced by [his] fellow
citizens.” See id. at 989–90. Sanchez-Martinez has not presented the type of threats
to himself or to individuals in his proposed social groups—“Americanized” long-
term residents of the United States or imputed non-Mexican nationals or Mexican

-- 2 of 4 --

3
nationals with family in the United States—that this Court has held can suffice to
establish materiality. See Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945–46 (9th Cir. 2004);
Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 982–83 (9th Cir. 2005).
3. Nor did the BIA abuse its discretion in determining that Sanchez-Martinez
failed to present evidence that was new and previously unavailable. At his initial
cancellation of removal merits hearing in August 2018, Sanchez-Martinez proffered
a 2016 U.S. State Department Mexico Human Rights Report that described violent
conditions in Mexico. The evidence that Sanchez-Martinez presented in support of
his motion to reopen describes substantially similar conditions and is not
“qualitatively different” from the Human Rights Report that Sanchez-Martinez
presented at his initial merits hearing. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987; Malty, 381
F.3d at 945–46. Moreover, Sanchez-Martinez did not proffer evidence of any new,
specific threats of violence while his appeal with the BIA was pending that could
give rise to a newfound fear of persecution. See Bhasin, 423 F.3d at 982–83.
Accordingly, the BIA acted within its discretion when it concluded that Sanchez-
Martinez’s evidence in support of his motion to reopen was not new and previously
unavailable.
4. The BIA’s determination that Sanchez-Martinez failed to submit new,
previously unavailable, material evidence was sufficient grounds for it to deny
Sanchez-Martinez’s motion to reopen. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 991–92.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
“[B]ecause [Petitioner] did not present previously unavailable, material evidence,
the Board was entitled to deny the motion solely on those grounds.” Id. at 992 n.2.
Therefore, we need not consider whether Sanchez-Martinez has made a prima facie
case that he is entitled to asylum or other relief.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --