BENJAMIN FLORES SALDANA, AKA Benjamin Lopez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENJAMIN FLORES SALDANA, AKA
Benjamin Lopez,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71472
Agency No. A095-764-164
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 13, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: BYBEE, CALLAHAN, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Benjamin Flores Saldana is a citizen of Mexico. Flores Saldana
appeals the denial of a motion to reconsider relating to his application for
immigration relief. We deny the petition.
* 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
JUL 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
Flores Saldana unlawfully came to the United States in 1993 as a ten-year-
old child. In 2007, Flores Saldana returned to Mexico and began trying to secure
legal status to reside in the United States. In 2014, Flores Saldana and his family
attempted to reenter the United States. Flores Saldana was taken into custody and
served with a Notice to Appear.
After he was released on bond and his hearing date was continued several
times, Flores Saldana failed to appear at a hearing in October 2015, leading the
immigration judge (“IJ”) to issue an order removing him in absentia. Flores
Saldana filed a motion to rescind that order, which was granted, and a new hearing
date was set.
The hearing was eventually held in December 2017. There, the IJ told Flores
Saldana that “all [immigration] relief applications and documents in support” were
due by March 2, 2018. The IJ warned Flores Saldana that “failure to timely file the
aforementioned documents will result in the conclusion that such applications are
abandoned.”
Despite these warnings, Flores Saldana did not submit any applications for
immigration relief or protection from removal by the March 2018 deadline. A few
days after the deadline, the IJ found that any applications for relief were
abandoned, canceled Flores Saldana’s future immigration merits hearing, and
ordered Flores Saldana’s removal.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
Flores Saldana did not appeal this removal order. Instead, in April 2018, he
filed a motion to reopen. Flores Saldana acknowledged his failure to meet
deadlines. But he argued that (1) he had recently married a U.S. citizen and he was
seeking an adjustment of status; and (2) his attorney had health issues that had
prevented him from completing the application. The IJ concluded that the motion
was not adequately supported by documentary evidence. The IJ also noted that
Flores Saldana had been expressly warned about the consequences of failing to file
his applications on time. The IJ observed that Flores Saldana’s attorney
“repeatedly rendered ineffective assistance of counsel throughout [the] removal
proceedings,” but found that Flores Saldana had not satisfied the requirements for
bringing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The IJ denied the motion to
reopen.
Flores Saldana did not appeal this denial of his motion to reopen. Instead, he
filed a two-page motion to reconsider seeking to submit medical records relating to
his attorney’s health issues. The IJ denied this motion and the Board upheld the
denial on appeal.
Flores Saldana timely appealed the BIA’s decision on his motion to
reconsider to this court. He now argues that (1) the IJ erred by finding any
applications abandoned; (2) the BIA erred by concluding that the murder of Flores
Saldana’s father-in-law in Mexico did not constitute past persecution; and (3) the

-- 3 of 4 --

4
BIA and IJ erred in determining that Flores Saldana had not established prima facie
eligibility for asylum relief. The government responds by noting that Flores
Saldana did not appeal the IJ’s removal order or the motion to reopen and that
Flores Saldana has failed to satisfy the demanding standard applicable to appellate
review of a motion to reconsider.
“A motion to reconsider addresses whether an IJ made errors of law or
fact . . . .” Ayala v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 1012, 1020 (9th Cir. 2017). The motion
must “specify [those] errors of law or fact in the previous order and . . . be
supported by pertinent authority.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C).
Here, Flores Saldana’s counsel did not satisfy this standard in either his
motion to reconsider or his opening brief in this court. His motion to reconsider is
only two pages long and focuses on Flores Saldana’s counsel’s poor health.
Though his opening brief is longer, it focuses on the general right to file for asylum
and the merits of Flores Saldana’s own request for immigration relief, rather than
the standard applicable to motions to reconsider. Like the motion to reconsider,
Flores Saldana’s brief also neglects to identify any specific errors of law or fact
purportedly made by the IJ.
The petition is DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --