Guadalupe Tarazon Gastelum v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUADALUPE TARAZON GASTELUM,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72556
Agency No. A209-138-852
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 5, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Guadalupe Tarazon Gastelum petitions pro se for review of a final order of
removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals after it (1) denied her motion
to remand, and (2) dismissed her appeal of an immigration judge’s order denying
her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
* 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 7 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252,
and we deny the petition.
The BIA did not err in denying the motion to remand. Angov v. Lynch, 788
F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 2015). We review the denial of a motion to remand for an
abuse of discretion and will not disturb the Board’s decision unless it “acted
arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law.” Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,
986 (9th Cir. 2010). Petitioner had the heavy burden of showing that her new or
previously unavailable evidence would likely change the outcome of her case.
Angov v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 2015); Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986.
We discern no abuse of discretion. While her brother’s killing did occur after the
immigration judge’s decision, petitioner failed to show how the new evidence
undermined each of the immigration judge’s independent reasons for rejecting her
claims for relief. For example, petitioner failed to show how the new evidence
would likely change the conclusions that her application for asylum was time-
barred, that her social groups were not cognizable, or that there was not evidence
that the Mexican government would consent or acquiesce to her torture by her ex-
partner.
Second, we reject petitioner’s argument that the BIA’s decision was
insufficiently reasoned. The BIA decision considers and rejects the arguments
Tarazon made in her motion to remand. Antonyan v. Holder, 642 F.3d 1250,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
1256–57 (9th Cir. 2011).
Finally, to the extent that Tarazon directly challenges the immigration
judge’s denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
protection independent of the adjudication of her motion to remand, she failed to
exhaust those challenges before the BIA. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Tarazon’s notice
of appeal states without elaboration that the immigration judge “erred as a matter
of law,” and she did not file a brief on appeal. We thus decline to review the
merits of the applications themselves. Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208
(9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --