NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FERNANDO JAVIER COREAS- No. 20-70554

SEGOVIA,

Agency No. A208-446-069 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted December 22, 2022** Pasadena, California

Before: WALLACE and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK,*** District Judge.

Petitioner Fernando Javier Coreas-Segovia, a native and citizen of El

* 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). *** The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation. Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d

983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010), we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Coreas-Segovia’s motion to

reopen as untimely because it was filed more than a year after the agency’s final

order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Coreas-Segovia failed to demonstrate

changed circumstances in El Salvador to qualify for the exception to the time

limitation for motions to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). A petitioner

moving to reopen based on changed country conditions must submit evidence

showing that conditions are “qualitatively different” than they were at the time of

his original hearing. Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 987-90. Coreas-Segovia’s new

evidence did not demonstrate a statistically significant increase in the homicide

rate; much of his evidence reflected continuing problems rather than new or

worsening conditions that arose after his 2017 hearing; and his concerns about the

effects of the Trump administration’s terminating aid to El Salvador had not yet

been borne out. Substantial evidence therefore supports the BIA’s conclusion that

the evidence accompanying Coreas-Segovia’s motion was not significantly

different from that available at the time of his hearing. See id. at 991.

Because failure to demonstrate a relevant change in country conditions was a

2 sufficient ground on which the BIA could deny the motion to reopen, we need not

address Coreas-Segovia’s prima facie eligibility for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. See Rodriguez v.

Garland, 990 F.3d 1205, 1211 (9th Cir. 2021).

PETITION DENIED.

3