Mahmud Hussein v. Loretta E. Lynch

MEMORANDUM

Mahmud Ibrahim Hussein appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his request to reopen his case for asylum or withholding of removal based upon changed circumstances and country conditions. Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion, we deny the petition. See Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

We review the denial of a motion to reopen proceedings for abuse of discretion. Velasquez-Escovar v. Holder, 768 F.3d 1000, 1003 (9th Cir.2014). “Aliens 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.” Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir.2008) (quoting Matter ofCoelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 473 (BIA 1992)). To prevail on a claim of changed circumstances and country conditions, the new “evidence must not have been available” or discoverable at the previous proceeding, among other requirements. Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir.2008) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii)). Factual determinations by the BIA are reviewed under a substantial evidence standard. “The…