Andrew Winston Alles; Bernadette Aloma Alles v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDREW WINSTON ALLES;
BERNADETTE ALOMA ALLES,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-73315
Agency Nos. A075-635-301
A075-639-417
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 6, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: M. SMITH, BADE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Andrew Winston and Bernadette Aloma Alles, natives and citizens of Sri
Lanka, petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision
denying their untimely and numerically barred motion to reopen their immigration
* 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
JUN 8 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
proceedings. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them
here, except as necessary to provide context to our ruling. We review the denial of
a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198,
1203 (9th Cir. 2017). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we
deny the petition.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ third motion to
reopen, in which they alleged changed country conditions in Sri Lanka. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). To be entitled to reopening on that
basis, Petitioners needed to produce material evidence that country conditions have
changed, demonstrate that the evidence was not available during the prior hearings,
and show that the new evidence—together with the evidence presented at the
original hearing—would establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See Agonafer,
859 F.3d at 1204.
The BIA adequately considered Petitioners’ evidence and reasonably
concluded it did not demonstrate materially changed conditions in Sri Lanka. See
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990–91 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that the
agency adequately considered evidence and “sufficiently announced its decision.”).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Petitioners had not satisfied
the prerequisites to warrant reopening their immigration proceedings. Likewise, we
find no legal or constitutional error in the BIA’s determination not to reopen the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
proceedings sua sponte. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]his
court has jurisdiction to review Board decisions denying sua sponte reopening for
the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decisions for legal or
constitutional error.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --