Flor De Maria Cordon-Gomez; Leandro Jandel Cordon-Mejia v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FLOR DE MARIA CORDON-GOMEZ;
LEANDRO JANDEL CORDON-MEJIA,
Petitioners,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71793
Agency Nos. A206-989-459
A206-898-460
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 3, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and IKUTA and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Dissent by Chief Judge THOMAS
Flor de Maria Cordon-Gomez and her son, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their second motion to reopen removal proceedings. We review for abuse
* 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).
FILED
FEB 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
of discretion, Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008), and deny the
petition.
1. Petitioners presented essentially the same evidence as in their
previous motion to reopen, and we again conclude that the BIA did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion. See Cordon-Gomez v. Barr, No. 18-70439 (9th
Cir. Aug. 27, 2019), ECF No. 19 (summarily dismissing Petitioners’ first motion to
reopen). The second motion is numerically barred and untimely, 8 U.S.C. §
1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Petitioners failed to establish
they qualify for an exception to these limits, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) (“changed
circumstances . . . evidence [must be] material and was not available and could not
have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing”); Toufighi v. Mukasey,
538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008). The first motion to reopen included very
similar evidence of Cordon-Gomez’s ex-spouse’s recent threats, and she believed
at that time that she would “very likely be killed” if she returned. Cordon Gomez
now states her ex threatened to cut her to pieces with a machete. The continued
threats, while disturbing, are not qualitatively different such that we can conclude
the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.
2. We reject as unsupported by the record and as insubstantial
Petitioners’ due process argument and any other remaining issues raised in the
petition. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858-59 (9th Cir. 1982).

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 4 --

Flor Cordon-Gomez, et al. v. Robert Wilkinson, No. 20-71793
THOMAS, Chief Judge, dissenting:
The new threats to the petitioner were serious and differed substantially from
the threats contained in the original application. Because this evidence “is material
and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing,” I would
grant the petition. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Therefore, I respectfully
dissent.
FILED
FEB 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 4 of 4 --