Santiago Claudio-Guadarrama v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANTIAGO CLAUDIO-GUADARRAMA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-117
Agency No.
A095-807-985
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 27, 2024**
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER, IKUTA, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Santiago Claudio-Guadarrama, a native and citizen of Mexico,
seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to
reopen removal proceedings. Reviewing the BIA’s denial for abuse of discretion,
* 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
MAR 29 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-117
Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002), we deny the petition.
The BIA permissibly concluded that Petitioner’s motion to reopen was
untimely. Petitioner filed the motion nearly four years after the BIA dismissed his
appeal, well beyond the statutorily required 90-day period. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(2). Petitioner contends that his motion falls under the exception for
changed circumstances in the country of nationality, described in 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) and 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii), and is therefore timely. But,
as the BIA noted, Petitioner cites circumstances that existed at or before the time of
his merits hearing in September 2015.
Petitioner asserts that his cousin1 was kidnapped and murdered in 2013, but
that unfortunate event occurred before the 2015 merits hearing. Petitioner has not
explained why he could not have presented the 2013 events during his merits
hearing. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to show that the evidence of the 2013
kidnapping and murder of his cousin “was not available and could not have been
discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see
also Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that “failure
to introduce previously unavailable, material evidence,” is one of “at least” three
permissible independent grounds for denial of a motion to reopen).
1 The BIA refers to Petitioner’s cousin as his uncle.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-117
Similarly, Petitioner cites his affiliation with “the Claudio family” and the
“growing and continuing violence in Mexico[.]” But those conditions are not
“‘qualitatively different’ from the evidence presented at the previous hearing”; nor
does the evidence show an “individualized threat” of persecution against Petitioner
due to his affiliation. Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987, 992 (emphasis omitted)
(citations omitted).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --