Josefina Son Tecum v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 26 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSEFINA SON TECUM, No. 20-71202 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-130-656 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 15, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: BENNETT and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and FOOTE,*** District Judge. Josefina Son Tecum, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. The Board of 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). *** The Honorable Elizabeth E. Foote, United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation. Appeals (“BIA”) denied the motion because it was untimely and failed to satisfy the exception for relief based on changed country conditions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition for review. As an unaccompanied minor, Son Tecum entered the United States at El Paso, Texas without a valid entry document on or about July 8, 2015. She left Guatemala because she received between twenty and fifty threatening phone calls in which the callers demanded money and threatened to harm her and her family if she did not pay. Son Tecum did not pay any money or report the threats to the police. She also believed that she was followed on her commute to school but did not see the faces of those she thought were following her. Two or three times, unknown men shouted threats from the street outside her house, but the men ran away after Son Tecum and her family shouted for help. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Son Tecum in 2015, charging her with removability as an alien not in possession of a valid entry document. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). At her removal hearing, Son Tecum conceded removability on that ground and admitted the underlying factual allegations. An Immigration Judge then denied her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and the BIA dismissed her appeal. 2 Son Tecum moved to reopen about nineteen months after the BIA’s decision. To be timely, a motion to reopen must generally be filed within ninety days of the BIA’s final administrative decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). But, as relevant here, “[t]here is no time limit on the filing of a motion to reopen” if it “is based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see …

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