ALFREDO JIMENEZ ULLOA, AKA Alfredo Ulloa Jimenez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALFREDO JIMENEZ ULLOA, AKA
Alfredo Ulloa Jimenez,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-72791
Agency No. A205-722-037
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 11, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: BENNETT and SUNG, Circuit Judges, and FOOTE,*** District Judge.
Petitioner Alfredo Jimenez Ulloa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order upholding the
* 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 Elizabeth E. Foote, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUL 13 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his motion to reopen. We review the “BIA’s
ruling on a motion to reopen . . . for abuse of discretion” and its factual findings for
substantial evidence. Jie Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1023 (9th Cir. 2004). We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
Petitioner’s motion to reopen claimed that he qualifies for cancellation of
removal based on new evidence showing that his “removal would result in
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to [his two sons], who [are] citizen[s]
of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). The BIA determined that
Petitioner’s evidence failed to meet the evidentiary requirements for a motion to
reopen: “A motion to reopen will not be granted unless the Immigration Judge is
satisfied that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and
could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.” 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(3). The BIA found that the medical evidence regarding Andrew
Jimenez was not material because Petitioner presented no evidence showing that
Andrew is his son and thus a qualifying relative under the cancellation of removal
statute. The BIA also found that although Petitioner had submitted evidence
showing that Aiden Jimenez is his son, Petitioner failed to show that the evidence
of Aiden’s medical condition was previously unavailable.
The BIA’s findings are supported by the record. Thus, it did not abuse its
discretion in upholding the IJ’s denial of the motion to reopen.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --