ELTON JAVIER RUGAMA, AKA Elton Rugama v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELTON JAVIER RUGAMA, AKA Elton
Rugama,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70458
Agency No. A028-876-799
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Elton Javier Rugama, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo
* 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
NOV 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-70458
constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny the petition for review.
To the extent Rugama submitted non-cumulative evidence of rehabilitation
in support of his motion to reopen, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
the motion where he did not establish that the evidence would likely have changed
the outcome of his case. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c); Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d
1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (a motion to open must show that “if proceedings were
reopened, the new evidence would likely change the result in the case” (citation
omitted)); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601-03 (9th Cir. 2006). We reject
Rugama’s contention that the BIA mischaracterized its previous October 1, 2015,
decision.
Rugama’s contention that the BIA failed to consider relevant evidence is not
supported by the record. See Fernandez, 439 F.3d at 603 (petitioner did not
overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record); Lata v. INS, 204
F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due
process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --