Romulo Ventura-Alcantara v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 12 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROMULO VENTURA-ALCANTARA, No. 17-71464 Petitioner, Agency No. A072-996-145 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 9, 2019** Seattle, Washington Before: WATFORD and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and ROTHSTEIN,*** District Judge. Romulo Ventura-Alcantara, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal * 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). *** The Honorable Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation. from an order of deportation. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(6), and we deny the petition. Deportation proceedings against Ventura-Alcantara began in January 1996. When Ventura-Alcantara failed to appear at a hearing in April 1996, he was ordered deported to Guatemala. Nearly 20 years later, he filed a motion to reopen, alleging that he was a citizen of Mexico, that conditions had changed there since the entry of his initial deportation order, and that he was eligible for asylum. The Board determined that the motion was untimely and remanded the case to the Immigration Judge for the limited purpose of determining Ventura-Alcantara’s citizenship. On remand, Ventura-Alcantara submitted an amended asylum application. The Immigration Judge ordered Ventura-Alcantara removed to Mexico and declined to consider the amended application. The Board dismissed Ventura- Alcantara’s appeal from that order, concluding that his motion to reopen was untimely because he “did not present a viable claim for asylum, as he did not articulate either the source or the basis of his fear, nor did he present evidence of changed conditions since his hearing as required to excuse his late filing.” We review the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1203 (9th Cir. 2017). The Board did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Ventura-Alcantara’s amended asylum application remained untimely. Ventura-Alcantara filed the motion to reopen well 2 after the expiration of the 90-day statutory limit. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). He asked the Board to excuse his delayed filing based on changed country conditions. Id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). The “‘critical question’” for that exception is “‘whether circumstances have changed sufficiently’ in the country since the prior hearing so that the petitioner now has a legitimate claim for asylum.” Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Here, Ventura-Alcantara does not have a legitimate claim for asylum. Ventura-Alcantara stated that he fears returning to Mexico “because of the violence and danger that small business owners such as myself would experience” and “because of the rampant crime throughout the country.” ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals