United States v. 2020-07-20 | 17-73257 | SERGIO CASAS-RODRIGUEZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SERGIO CASAS-RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 17-73257

Agency No. A099-755-738

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 14, 2020
**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Sergio Casas-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 questions
of law. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). 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 20 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 17-73257
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Casas-Rodriguez’s motion
to reopen, where he did not meet his burden of showing the new evidence offered
would likely change the outcome of the case. Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019,
1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 473 (BIA
1992)); see also Fernandez v. Gonzalez, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (court
has jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision where “the evidence submitted
addresses a hardship ground so distinct from that considered previously as to make
the motion to reopen a request for new relief”).
Casas-Rodriguez’s contention that the BIA applied the incorrect standard is
not supported.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.