Gabino Morales Ramirez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GABINO MORALES RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-1219
Agency No.
A200-242-344
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: PAEZ and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS, District
Judge.***
Gabino Morales Ramirez (“Morales Ramirez”), a native and citizen of
Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial
* 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).
*** The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
FILED
NOV 9 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-1219
of his motion to reopen proceedings for his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s denial of a motion to
reopen for abuse of discretion. Chanda v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1034, 1036 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny the petition.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Morales Ramirez’s motion
to reopen because he failed to establish a material change in country conditions in
Mexico. See 8 U.S.C § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1138
(9th Cir. 2016). Morales Ramirez, a Christian minister, argues that conditions in
Mexico have changed materially since his last immigration hearing because
violence in the country has worsened generally and against Christian leaders.
Morales Ramirez relies on undifferentiated threats to the group as a whole and
draws the conclusion that “he will be targeted for persecution, tortured, or even
killed if he returns to Mexico.”
Although homicide rates have continued to rise in Mexico, evidence of this
generalized violence is largely the same as the evidence that Morales Ramirez
relied upon in his previous hearing and is insufficient to warrant reopening.
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that evidence of
continued, although worsening, conditions was insufficient to warrant reopening).
Morales Ramirez has also failed to demonstrate that evidence regarding violence

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-1219
against religious leaders has “individualized relevancy” to his renewed claim for
relief. Id. Accordingly, the BIA’s decision not to reopen proceedings was not
“arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Singh v. Garland, 46 F.4th 1117, 1122
(9th Cir. 2022).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --