Dolores Roxana Alas-De Ramos v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOLORES ROXANA ALAS-DE RAMOS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70673
Agency No. A099-664-119
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 24, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Dolores Roxana Alas-De Ramos, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing her motion to reopen proceedings.
* 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
JUN 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-70673
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960,
964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Alas-De Ramos’s untimely
motion to reopen. As the BIA concluded, she did not introduce new evidence that
reflects materially changed country conditions or that would likely have changed
the outcome of her case. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1);
see Young Sun Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008)
(“[Petitioners] who seek to remand or reopen proceedings to pursue relief bear a
‘heavy burden’ of proving that, if proceedings were reopened, the new evidence
would likely change the result in the case.” (quoting Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N.
Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992))).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --