DHILLON v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-28No. No. 15-70669

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Dhillon's untimely motion to reopen, as she failed to introduce new evidence of materially changed circumstances or evidence that would likely have changed the outcome of her case.

Balwinder Kaur Dhillon, an Indian citizen, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to reject her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. The court previously had denied her petition challenging the agency's finding that she was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protections. On this second appeal, the court examined whether the BIA properly exercised its discretion in rejecting her late motion to reopen.

The court determined that the BIA did not abuse its discretion. Dhillon's motion failed because she did not present new evidence showing materially changed circumstances in her home country or evidence that would have likely altered the original outcome of her case. To succeed on a motion to reopen, she bore a substantial burden of demonstrating that new evidence would probably have changed the result. Since she did not meet this standard, the court upheld the BIA's denial.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Standards for reopening immigration proceedings
Burden of proof for motions to reopen based on new evidence
Whether changed circumstances in applicant's home country justify reopening
Abuse of discretion review standard for BIA decisions

Procedural posture

The Ninth Circuit reviewed the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of Dhillon's motion to reopen her removal proceedings, which arose from a prior unsuccessful petition for asylum and protection under international law.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Balwinder Kaur Dhillon, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen proceedings.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny the petition for review.

We previously denied Dhillons petition for review of the agencys determination that she was not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Dhillon v. Holder, 561 F. Appx 633 (9th Cir. 2014) (unpublished). We now conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying her untimely motion to reopen. As the BIA observed, Dhillon did not introduce new evidence that reflects materially changed circumstances in India or that would likely have changed the outcome of her case. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see Young Sun Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[Petitioners] who seek to remand or reopen proceedings to pursue relief bear a ‘heavy burden’ of proving that, if proceedings were reopened, the new evidence would likely change the result in the case.” (quoting Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992))).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.