Emerita Lara Leyva v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EMERITA LARA LEYVA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-71499
Agency No. A091-893-856
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Emerita Lara Leyva, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen
proceedings.
* 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
MAY 27 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-71499
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960,
964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.
We previously denied Lara Leyva’s petition for review of the agency’s
determination that she was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or
protection under the Convention Against Torture. Lara Leyva v. Barr, No. 18-
71682 (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2019) (unpublished). We now conclude that the BIA did
not abuse its discretion by denying her motion to reopen. As the BIA observed,
Lara Leyva did not introduce new evidence that would likely have changed the
outcome of her case. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019,
1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (applicants who seek to “reopen proceedings to pursue relief
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))); see also Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d
1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (concluding that where police investigated but were
ultimately unable to solve crimes, the evidence did not compel the conclusion that
the government was unable or unwilling to control the petitioner’s harassers).
The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --