Sergio Casas-Rodriguez v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 20 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SERGIO CASAS-RODRIGUEZ, No. 17-73257 Petitioner, Agency No. A099-755-738 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. 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). 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. 2 17-73257