Martha Garcia-Lopez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTHA GARCIA-LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70935
Agency No. A070-916-156
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Martha Garcia-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to
reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
* 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
FEB 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-70935
discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983,
986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia-Lopez’s untimely
motion to reopen based on changed country conditions where she failed to
establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i),
(c)(7)(C)(ii); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2016) (BIA
may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for the
relief sought); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an
applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”);
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 reject as unsupported by the
record Garcia-Lopez’s contention that the BIA erred in its analysis of her motion.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Garcia-Lopez’s remaining
contentions regarding her eligibility for relief. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to decide issues unnecessary to
the results they reach).
We generally lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen
proceedings sua sponte. See Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 2020)

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-70935
(denial of sua sponte reopening is committed to agency discretion and
unreviewable).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider whether Garcia-Lopez’s case warrants
a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688
F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012).
We do not consider the materials Garcia-Lopez references in her opening
brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955,
963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --