Martinez Lemos v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTINEZ LEMOS, ET AL.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-669
Agency Nos. A206-372-167
A206-372-166
A206-372-168
A206-372-169
A206-372-170
A206-372-171
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 11, 2023**
Seattle, Washington
Before: TALLMAN, CLIFTON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Esmeralda Martinez Lemos and her five children, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals to
deny her motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we
deny the petition for review.
* 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
MAY 16 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Petitioner previously applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Those applications
were denied by the agency, and Petitioner was ordered removed. Three years ago,
this Court denied a petition for review from that order. Martinez Lemos v. Barr,
812 Fed. App’x 546 (9th Cir. 2020).
Soon thereafter, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen her removal proceedings
with the BIA. The BIA denied that motion to reopen, holding that Petitioner’s
motion to reopen was untimely, rejecting Petitioner’s argument that the tardy filing
should be excused based on changed country conditions in Mexico, and concluding
that Petitioner had not established prima facie eligibility for relief as required for a
motion to reopen.
We review the BIA’s decision to deny the motion to reopen for an abuse of
discretion. Silva v. Garland, 993 F.3d 705, 717–18 (9th Cir. 2021). We “review its
factual findings for substantial evidence.” Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986
(9th Cir. 2010).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner’s
evidence did not show “changed conditions” but instead showed evidence of
continued crime and violence in Mexico that had already been considered by the
Immigration Judge and the BIA during Petitioner’s previous proceedings. See
Rodriguez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir. 2021). Because Petitioner

-- 2 of 3 --

3
failed to “produce evidence that conditions had changed in [Mexico],” the BIA did
not abuse its discretion when it denied her motion to reopen. Feng Gui Lin v.
Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 986 (9th Cir. 2009).
In addition, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Petitioner
did not show prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. As the BIA held, the
particular social group proposed by Petitioner was not cognizable.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --