Naji Antoine Mehanna v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NAJI ANTOINE MEHANNA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70346
Agency No. A075-480-932
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 17, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Naji Antoine Mehanna, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of
FILED
MAR 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

discretion. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
1. The BIA acted within its discretion when it concluded that Mehanna failed
to show a change in conditions in Lebanon that would excuse the tardiness of his
motion to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Neither the newly submitted
country reports nor Mehanna’s expert report are “quantitatively different” from the
reports Mehanna submitted in 1998, when Mehanna originally appeared before an
Immigration Judge. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987–90 (9th Cir. 2010)
(finding that more recent country reports describing conditions similar to those found
in previous report failed to show sufficient change in country conditions). The newly
submitted evidence shows the continuing influence of Hezbollah in Lebanon, but does
not support Mehanna’s assertion that changed circumstances in Lebanon and his
former membership in the Lebanese Special Forces “will imperil him upon his return
to Lebanon.” See also Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 386 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding
that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determination that a Lebanese petitioner
persecuted in the late 1990s for anti-Syrian views had failed to show a probability he
would be tortured if returned to Lebanon after the Syrian military’s withdrawal from
Lebanon and the emergence of an anti-Hezbollah majority in the legislature).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

2. Nor did the BIA abuse its discretion in concluding that Mehanna’s new
reports were not material. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). The new evidence
Mehanna submitted, including his expert report, is not material because it “simply
recounts generalized conditions in [Lebanon] that fail to demonstrate that [Mehanna’s]
predicament is appreciably different from the dangers faced by [his] fellow citizens.”
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (internal citations omitted); see also Toufighi, 538 F.3d
at 996-97 (finding evidence immaterial to petitioner’s claim where petitioner failed
to show how he would be affected by the changed conditions described in the
evidence).
3. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings
sua sponte based on Mehanna’s marriage to a United State citizen. See Go v. Holder,
744 F.3d 604, 609-10 (9th Cir. 2014). Additionally, Mehanna has waived any claim
regarding the BIA’s decision by failing to address it in his opening brief. See Lopez-
Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --