Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Dolores Roxana ALAS-DE RAMOS, Petitioner, v. Merrick B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-70673

Decided: June 28, 2021

Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Rosana Cheung, Attorney, Law Office of Rosana Kit Wai Cheung, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner Rebekah Nahas, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent


Dolores Roxana Alas-De Ramos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing 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.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Alas-De Ramos's untimely motion to reopen. As the BIA concluded, she did not introduce new evidence that reflects materially changed country conditions 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.


Copied to clipboard