Fernando Javier Coreas- Segovia v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FERNANDO JAVIER COREAS-
SEGOVIA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70554
Agency No. A208-446-069
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 22, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: WALLACE and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK,*** District
Judge.
Petitioner Fernando Javier Coreas-Segovia, a native and citizen of El
* 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 S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), we deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Coreas-Segovia’s motion to
reopen as untimely because it was filed more than a year after the agency’s final
order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Coreas-Segovia failed to demonstrate
changed circumstances in El Salvador to qualify for the exception to the time
limitation for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). A petitioner
moving to reopen based on changed country conditions must submit evidence
showing that conditions are “qualitatively different” than they were at the time of
his original hearing. Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90. Coreas-Segovia’s new
evidence did not demonstrate a statistically significant increase in the homicide
rate; much of his evidence reflected continuing problems rather than new or
worsening conditions that arose after his 2017 hearing; and his concerns about the
effects of the Trump administration’s terminating aid to El Salvador had not yet
been borne out. Substantial evidence therefore supports the BIA’s conclusion that
the evidence accompanying Coreas-Segovia’s motion was not significantly
different from that available at the time of his hearing. See id. at 991.
Because failure to demonstrate a relevant change in country conditions was a

-- 2 of 3 --

3
sufficient ground on which the BIA could deny the motion to reopen, we need not
address Coreas-Segovia’s prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. See Rodriguez v.
Garland, 990 F.3d 1205, 1211 (9th Cir. 2021).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --