From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Galdino v. Lynch

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 15, 2015
603 F. App'x 608 (9th Cir. 2015)

Opinion

No. 11-71865

05-15-2015

MARCO ANTONIO GALDINO, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Agency No. A097-375-403 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 13, 2015 San Francisco, California Before: O'SCANNLAIN, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
--------

Marco Antonio Galdino petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") order denying his second motion to reopen his removal proceedings to permit him to reapply for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008).

There is no dispute that Galdino's motion was time and number barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7). Therefore, Galdino had to establish an exception to the bar by demonstrating that there were changed country conditions in Brazil giving rise to his prima facie eligibility for aylum, withholding of removal and relief under CAT. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Galdino failed to make this showing. The evidence submitted with Galdino's second motion to reopen did not establish that circumstances materially worsened (since Galdino's merit hearing in 2006) in Brazil, generally or in a manner relevant to Galdino's claims. See Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1063 (9th Cir. 2008) ("Changed circumstances are those which materially affect the applicant's eligibility for asylum." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008). The BIA also adequately addressed the evidence and issues before it. See Feng Gui Lin v. Holder, 588 F.3d 981, 987 (9th Cir. 2009) (the BIA "need not expressly refute on the record every single piece of evidence"). Thus, the denial of Galdino's second motion to reopen was not "arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law." Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Galdino v. Lynch

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
May 15, 2015
603 F. App'x 608 (9th Cir. 2015)
Case details for

Galdino v. Lynch

Case Details

Full title:MARCO ANTONIO GALDINO, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: May 15, 2015

Citations

603 F. App'x 608 (9th Cir. 2015)