Background and U.S. Relations from the Congressional Research Service, which

Perez submitted for the first time on appeal to the BIA as additional support for her

CAT claim. The BIA is not required to take into consideration new arguments or

3 evidence raised for the first time on appeal. Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293,

1296-97 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam).

Furthermore, the BIA correctly determined that the inclusion of the country

report did not warrant a remand to the IJ. A motion to reopen proceedings is not

granted unless the “evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available

and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.” 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(1). That is not the case here. Perez has not shown that the country

report was unavailable prior to her hearing before the IJ.

3. While the BIA incorrectly placed the burden on Perez to show that she

could not relocate within El Salvador, Maldonado v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155, 1163-

64 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc), the error does not require remand because relocation

was not dispositive. Perez incorrectly argues that the BIA denied her petition

“solely” on the basis that she could safely relocate within El Salvador. The BIA

considered the possibility of relocation as one of several grounds, as is permitted

under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3). While the BIA should not have placed the burden

of proof on Perez for potential relocation, because the denial of CAT protection

also rested on other grounds, it does not require us to grant the petition.

PETITION DENIED.

4