Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Walter A. AYALA, aka Walter Alexis Ayala Garcia, Petitioner, v. Robert M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM ***
Walter A. Ayala, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his untimely motion to reopen his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1203 (9th Cir. 2017). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition.
We previously remanded so that the BIA could consider “Ayala's family-membership basis for relief” for his motion to reopen, which the BIA had overlooked. Ayala v. Whitaker, 747 F. App'x 549, 550 (9th Cir. 2018).
On remand, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ayala's motion to reopen because Ayala failed to show that he was prima facie eligible for asylum or withholding of removal based on his family membership. See Agonafer, 859 F.3d at 1204 (stating that “[t]o prevail on a motion to reopen on the basis of changed country conditions,” a petitioner must show, among other things, “prima facie eligibility for the relief sought” (citation omitted)); Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016) (stating that to establish prima facie eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal based on a particular social group, an applicant's burden includes showing “a risk of persecution on account of his membership in the specified particular social group,” which “is often referred to as the ‘nexus’ requirement” (citation omitted)).
In his opening brief, Ayala does not raise the BIA's determination that he failed to establish his eligibility for CAT protection, and therefore he has waived that issue. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A]rguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-72002
Decided: March 04, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)