LOAY HERIZ SHAMUON ALASKCR, AKA Loay Hermiz Shamoun Alaskar v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LOAY HERIZ SHAMUON ALASKCR,
AKA Loay Hermiz Shamoun Alaskar,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71213
Agency No. A206-267-435
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BOUGH,*** District
Judge.
* 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 Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
FILED
NOV 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Loay Heriz Shamuon Alaskcr, a native and citizen of Iraq, petitions for review
of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing an appeal
from the order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying a motion to reopen. We
review for abuse of discretion, see INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323–24 (1992),
and will not disturb the BIA’s decision unless it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary
to law,” Valeriano v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 669, 672 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
We deny the petition for review.
Because Alaskcr filed his motion to reopen more than 90 days after the final
administrative decision of removal, it was untimely. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i).
Untimeliness may be excused if “circumstances have changed sufficiently that a
petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-
founded fear of future persecution.” See Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942, 945 (9th
Cir. 2004).
Alaskcr argues that the rise of ISIS from 2014 to 2016 increased the likelihood
of persecution of Chaldean Christians and those returning to Iraq from the United
States. The IJ concluded, however, “[t]here has been sectarian violence in Iraq for
many years . . . [and] [r]espondent has not shown that conditions have materially
worsened since his removal hearing was completed in 2016,” and that “if anything,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the evidence in this case shows a decrease in the level of violence in Iraq.”1 The IJ
also found that the “evidence shows that Iraqis with ties to the U.S. have faced
difficulties upon returning to Iraq for more than a decade, since at least 2007,” and
that individuals returning to Iraq with ties to the United States do not face a
likelihood of being tortured. The record supports the IJ’s conclusions, and the
agency therefore did not abuse its discretion in finding that Alaskcr did not establish
materially changed country conditions in Iraq for Chaldean Christians.2
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
1 Alaskcr does not challenge in this Court the IJ’s use of 2016 as the starting
date for gauging the purported change in conditions.
2 Alaskcr argued for the first time on appeal to the BIA that the resumption of
removals to Iraq was a material change in circumstances warranting reopening. See
Hamama v. Adduci, 912 F.3d 869, 872 (6th Cir. 2018). The BIA did not abuse its
discretion by finding that Alaskcr failed to establish how recent deportations to Iraq
increased his risk of persecution and torture.

-- 3 of 3 --