Asal Nazi v. Lynch

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OCT 08 2015

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ASAL NAZI, Nos. 08-70851, 10-70980

Petitioner, Agency No. A076-715-598

v.

MEMORANDUM*

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted September 2, 2015 Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, RAWLINSON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Asal Nazi, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of orders of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motions to reopen her removal

proceedings to present evidence that she would be persecuted if returned to Iran.

1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Nazi’s first motion to

reopen. In support of that motion, Nazi presented evidence that women are

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Page 2 of 4 systematically discriminated against in Iran. As the BIA noted, much of this

evidence was undated or predated her initial…

MEMORANDUM *

Asal Nazi, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions for review of orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her motions to reopen her removal proceedings to present evidence that she would be persecuted if returned to Iran.

1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Nazi’s first motion to reopen. In support of that motion, Nazi presented evidence that women are systematically discriminated against in Iran. As the BIA noted, much of this evidence was undated or predated her initial proceedings and, thus, failed to show that conditions in Iran had changed for the worse since Nazi initially sought relief from removal. Moreover, the BIA concluded that, to the extent the evidence established changed country conditions, it “indieate[d] primarily a crackdown on the manner of dress for women and against activists” and was insufficient to establish that Nazi was prima facie eligible for relief. Because Nazi made no showing at that time that she was an activist or would not comply with the dress code, and thus that there was some “individualized threat to persecute her,” Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 992 (9th Cir.2010), the BIA did not abuse its…

concurring in.part and dissenting in part:

I concur in that portion of the disposition denying the petition for review of the denial of the first motion to reopen filed by Asal Nazi (Nazi).

I respectfully dissent from that portion of the disposition granting the petition for review of the denial of Nazi’s second motion to reopen.

We review denial of the motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. See Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th Cir.2014). Applying this standard, the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) “may-only be reversed if it is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to the law.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In my view, this standard has not been met.

Nazi specifically contends that the BIA abused its discretion in holding that she failed to demonstrate individualized threats to her in Iran, and in holding that her political activities were limited to the extent that she would not have come to the attention of Iranian authorities.

The BIA concluded that Nazi’s supplemental declaration reflected only that she had “been involved in an unspecified manner with other Iranians”; had “been attending protests by Federal Building in Los…