NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 22 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARTA GAVRILOVA, AKA Marta Istrin, No. 14-73189 Petitioner, Agency No. A071-586-409 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 7, 2017** Pasadena, California Before: BERZON and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and PAYNE,*** District Judge. 1. On July 11, 2014, Marta Gavrilova filed a motion to reopen deportation proceedings with the BIA to pursue asylum, withholding of removal, and * 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 Robert E. Payne, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation. Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief. The BIA denied her motion and Gavrilova petitioned this Court for review. We hold that the BIA did not abuse its discretion and, therefore, deny her petition. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). 2. Ordinarily, “a party may file only one motion to reopen deportation or exclusion proceedings . . . and that motion must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). These limitations do not apply, however, if the motion is for the purposes of seeking asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief “based on changed circumstances arising in . . . the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” See id. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1203–04 (9th Cir. 2017). “To prevail on a motion to reopen on the basis of changed country conditions,” a movant must, inter alia, “demonstrate that the new evidence, when considered together with the evidence presented at the original hearing, would establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought.” Agonafer, 859 F.3d at 1204 (citation omitted). Under this prima facie standard, a movant need show only “a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied.” Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1139 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). “The BIA 2 14-73189 is required to credit evidence supporting [the motion] unless it is ‘inherently unbelievable.’” Id. at 1140–41 (citation omitted). Here, Gavrilova has been subject to an order of deportation since 1998 and has filed six motions to reopen.1 Hence, her motion is time- and number-barred unless she can avail herself of an exception. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3). Gavrilova claims that the changed country conditions exception applies because Ukraine, her country of removal, is embroiled in a civil war between the government and Russian separatists. Gavrilova ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals