Bondi

facts or changed circumstances since a petitioner’s hearing.” Doissaint v.

Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2008) (emphasis in original). We review

the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider for abuse of

discretion. Toor v. Lynch, 789 F.3d 1055, 1059 (9th Cir. 2015). The BIA abuses

its discretion when it acts “arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to the law.”

Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Lainez-Ortiz

v. INS, 96 F.3d 393, 395 (9th Cir. 1996)).

1. Aguilar argues that the BIA erred when it affirmed the IJ’s denial of his

motion to reopen because he presented new evidence showing that his acceptance

of voluntary departure was unknowing and unintelligent. See 8 C.F.R. §

1003.2(c)(1). However, the BIA reasonably held that Aguilar’s assertions did not

justify reopening. While the BIA is under an affirmative obligation to “accept as

23-868 true facts stated in [the non-citizen’s] affidavit” unless “inherently unbelievable,”

Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993, 999 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Maroufi v.

INS, 772 F.2d 597, 600 (9th Cir. 1985)), Aguilar’s affidavit did…