LINO PLAYAS-SERRANO, AKA Lino Playas Serrano, AKA Juan Carlos Salgado v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LINO PLAYAS-SERRANO, AKA Lino
Playas Serrano, AKA Juan Carlos Salgado,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-70952
Agency No. A200-154-205
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Lino Playas-Serrano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen
removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Perez v. Mukasey,
* 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
JUL 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-70952
516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Playas-Serrano’s untimely
and number barred motion to reopen based on changed country conditions where
he failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2),
(3)(ii); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2016) (“A motion
to reopen will not be granted unless the respondent establishes a prima facie case
of eligibility for the underlying relief sought.”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,
1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by
criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus
to a protected ground”). We lack jurisdiction to consider Playas-Serrano’s claim
based on his family’s landownership and his eligibility for CAT relief. See Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to
consider claims not raised to BIA).
We reject as unsupported by the record Playas-Serrano’s contentions that the
BIA ignored evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of his motion.
The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --