Lopez Herrera v. Blanche

── Lopez Herrera v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS FREDY LOPEZ HERRERA, No. 24-7571 Agency No. Petitioner, A205-248-868 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 19, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: BENNETT, KOH, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Luis Fredy Lopez-Herrera, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen proceedings related to his applications for asylum, withholding 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). removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Petitioner also challenges the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen his case. We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition in part and deny the petition in part. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Fonseca-Fonseca v. Garland, 76 F.4th 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 2023). “The BIA abuses its discretion when it acts ‘arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to the law,’” or “fails to provide a reasoned explanation for its actions.” Tadevosyan v. Holder, 743 F.3d 1250, 1252–53 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005)). Because motions to reopen are “disfavored,” the agency has “broad discretion” to grant or deny such motions. Cui v. Garland, 13 F.4th 991, 995 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992)). 1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to reopen for failure to submit evidence of material changed country conditions. When a noncitizen seeks to reopen proceedings more than ninety days after a final order of removal, they must provide evidence of material changed conditions in the country of nationality or removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Kaur v. Garland, 2 F.4th 823, 830 (9th Cir. 2021). The evidence submitted in support of a motion to reopen must be “qualitatively different from the evidence presented at the asylum hearing,” or the motion may be denied as time barred. Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 2 24-7571 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation modified). Petitioner’s newly submitted 2019 and 2022 country reports are largely cumulative of the findings of the 2017 report that was before the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) with Petitioner’s original application. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 989 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that newly submitted evidence did not constitute material evidence of changed country conditions when it “describe[d] conditions similar to those found in the [previously submitted] report”). Petitioner points to evidence of increased violence towards indigenous populations and asserts a fear of harm because he was previously targeted for being indigenous. But this evidence is not material because Petitioner asserted a fear of gang members retaliating agains