NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

MAY 20 2025

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TEODORO RODRIGUEZ-BLANCO, No. 24-719 Agency No. Petitioner, A200-975-654 v.

MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 16, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and BENNETT and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Teodoro Rodriguez-Blanco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to

reopen his removal proceedings based on changed country conditions. Rodriguez-

Blanco moved to reopen his proceedings to seek reconsideration of his eligibility

* 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). for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against

Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and review the denial of a

motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Hernandez-Ortiz v. Garland, 32 F.4th

794, 800 (9th Cir. 2022). We deny the petition for review.

Ordinarily, a petitioner must file a motion to reopen within ninety days of

the final administrative removal order. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). The ninety-

day deadline does not apply, however, where a petitioner’s motion to reopen is

“based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the

country to which removal has been ordered.” Id. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). To prevail

on a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions, a petitioner must

(1) produce evidence of changed country conditions, (2) establish that the evidence

is material, (3) show that the evidence was not available and would not have been

discovered or presented at the previous hearing, and (4) demonstrate prima facie

eligibility for the relief sought. Hernandez-Ortiz, 32 F.4th at 804 (quoting

Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1204 (9th Cir. 2017)).

Rodriguez-Blanco contends that his serious medical conditions constitute

changed circumstances that warrant reopening despite his untimely filing.

Although a change in personal circumstances can establish the materiality

of changed country conditions, motions to reopen based solely on changes in

personal circumstances cannot succeed. Rodriguez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1205,

2 24-719 1209–10 (9th Cir. 2021). The country conditions evidence Rodriguez-Blanco

proffers demonstrates that individuals who are institutionalized in Mexico may

face deplorable conditions, but the evidence does not show these conditions have

changed since Rodriguez-Blanco’s prior removal hearings. Id. at 1210 (“General

references to ‘continuing’ or ‘remaining’ problems is not evidence of a change in a

country’s conditions.”). Because Rodriguez-Blanco has not demonstrated changed

country conditions in Mexico, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying

his motion to reopen as untimely.

PETITION DENIED.1

1 The temporary stay of removal shall remain in effect until issuance of the mandate.

3 24-719