Jose Eduardo Rivera-Rodas v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE EDUARDO RIVERA-RODAS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73049
Agency No. A074-361-989
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: IKUTA, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Jose Eduardo Rivera-Rodas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks
review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his
FILED
MAR 10 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 2 --

motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the
petition.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Rivera-Rodas failed
to demonstrate that his new evidence (death certificates of persons from El
Salvador) established a prima facie case that he would be persecuted on account of
a protected ground or would more likely than not be tortured by or with the
acquiescence of the Salvadorian government. See Kaur v. Garland, 2 F.4th 823,
833 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining that such prima facie eligibility is established
“where the evidence reveals a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements
for relief have been satisfied” (citation omitted)). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse
its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.
We reject Rivera-Rodas’s argument that the BIA abused its discretion by
failing to apply Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 2012). The BIA
recognized its sua sponte discretionary authority to reopen and the standard for
evaluating when administrative closure would be appropriate, and made no legal
error in declining to exercise such authority. Therefore, no exception to this
court’s lack of jurisdiction over the BIA’s sua sponte authority to reopen applies.
See Menendez-Gonzalez v. Barr, 929 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2019).
PETITION DENIED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --