United States v. 2020-08-19 | 14-73834 | DEMETRIO ZARATE V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEMETRIO FELIX ZARATE,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-73834

Agency No. A073-717-843

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted August 17, 2020
**

Before: SCHROEDER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Demetrio Felix Zarate, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his second
motion to reopen. 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

*
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

AUG 19 2020

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

2 14-73834
determinations of purely legal questions and claims of due process violations.
Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA denied Zarate’s motion for permissible reasons, including that he
failed to establish a prima facie case for the relief he sought and that he failed to
establish that he qualified for the exception to the filing deadline for motions to
reopen by introducing previously unavailable, material evidence. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Zarate v. Holder, 424 F. App’x 675, 676
(9th Cir. 2011) (denying Zarate’s first petition for review); Zarate v. Holder, 575
F. App’x 773 (9th Cir. 2014) (denying his second). For example, as the BIA
noted, Zarate did not introduce evidence persuasively showing “that the death of
his cousin was in any way related to [Zarate], or that the death was, in fact, a
murder.”
As for Zarate’s other contentions, the BIA did not err in finding that he did
not establish a prima facie case of membership in a cognizable social group. See
Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that “returning
Mexicans from the United States” did not constitute a particular social group). The

3 14-73834
record does not support Zarate’s contention that the BIA failed to consider the
evidence and arguments he presented.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.