TERESA GUEVARA TRIGUEROS, AKA Mercedes Garcia Garcia, AKA Teresa Jesus Guevara, AKA… v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TERESA GUEVARA TRIGUEROS,
AKA Mercedes Garcia Garcia, AKA
Teresa Jesus Guevara, AKA Nancy
Gutierrez Wenees,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73554
Agency No. A088-895-326
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: IKUTA, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Teresa Guevara Trigueros seeks review of a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings to
FILED
MAR 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

reapply for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Guevara Trigueros failed to demonstrate that country conditions in Honduras
had materially changed from her 2013 hearing before the Immigration Judge (IJ) to
her 2016 motion to reopen. Although she presented new evidence that her family
continues to receive extortion threats, such evidence was not “qualitatively
different from the evidence presented at the previous hearing.” Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).1
Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in holding that Guevara Trigueros
failed to demonstrate a material change in country conditions sufficient to satisfy
the timeliness exception for a motion to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
See Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996–97 (9th Cir. 2008); 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
Moreover, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in holding that Guevara
Trigueros failed to make a prima facie showing that she is eligible for withholding
1 To the extent that Guevara Trigueros argues that her daughter’s illness
constitutes a material change in country conditions, that argument fails because
“mere changes in a petitioner’s personal circumstances are not sufficient” to justify
reopening proceedings. Rodriguez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1205, 1207 (9th Cir.
2021). Moreover, the claim that she is eligible for withholding of removal on
those grounds is unexhausted, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider that
claim. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 2004).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

of removal. Guevara Trigueros failed to demonstrate a nexus between persecution
by the criminals who harmed her family and any protected ground because “[a]n
alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or
random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino
v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).2
Because Guevara Trigueros’s motion to reopen did not address her claim for
protection under CAT, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron, 358 F.3d at
677. Although Guevara Trigueros moved the BIA to reopen proceedings sua
sponte, she does not challenge the BIA’s denial of that motion on appeal and
therefore has forfeited that claim. Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1165 n.5
(9th Cir. 2008).
DENIED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.
2 Because Guevara Trigueros is subject to a reinstated removal order, and
therefore not eligible for asylum, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5); Andrade-Garcia v.
Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 2016), we do not consider her arguments to the
extent they address her prima facie eligibility for asylum.
3

-- 3 of 3 --