Doroteo Gonzalez-Aguilar v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOROTEO GONZALEZ-AGUILAR,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-71679
Agency No. A200-831-989
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Doroteo Gonzalez-Aguilar, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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. We
review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi
* 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
MAR 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-71679
v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo questions of law.
Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gonzalez-Aguilar’s motion
to reopen to reassess his eligibility for cancellation of removal on the ground that
the new evidence submitted was not likely to change the result in his case. See
Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (petitioners who seek to
reopen proceedings “bear a ‘heavy burden’ of proving that, if proceedings were
reopened, the new evidence would likely change the result in the case.” (quoting
Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992))).
We reject as unsupported by the record Gonzalez-Aguilar’s contention that
the BIA erred by failing to consider future hardship his wife’s pregnancy would
have on his two United States citizen children because the record shows that his
motion to reopen only raised contentions of hardship as to his third unborn child.
To the extent Gonzalez-Aguilar contends the BIA erred by failing to conduct a
cumulative analysis of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to these two
children, his contention fails. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (the BIA need not
write an exegesis on every contention).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-71679
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --