RAFAEL ROBLEDO ARROYO V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-72732 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 08 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAFAEL ROBLEDO ARROYO, AKA Rafael Arroyo, AKA Rafael Robledo, AKA Maximilian Robledo Alvarado, No. 14-72732 Agency No. A205-314-666 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 5, 2016** Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON and D.W. NELSON, Senior Circuit Judges, and OWENS, Circuit Judge. Rafael Robledo Arroyo (“Arroyo”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his * 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). motion to reopen removal proceedings to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), and we DENY the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen because Arroyo failed to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought. See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2007) (“In order to prevail on his motion to reopen the proceedings on the basis of changed country conditions, Toufighi needed to clear four hurdles: (1) he had to produce evidence that conditions had changed in Iran; (2) the evidence had to be ‘material;’ (3) the evidence must not have been available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding; and (4) he had to ‘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.’ The Board could thus deny the motion to reopen for failing to meet any of these burdens.”) (internal citations omitted); see also Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 986 (“The BIA can deny a motion to reopen on any one of at least three independent grounds,” including “failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought”) (citation 2 and internal quotation marks omitted). In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Arroyo’s remaining contentions. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
