Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealhearingmotion
motion

Related Cases

Rodriguez-Manzano v. Holder
View Case »
Osorio v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Geronimo v. Mukasey
View Case »
Wauchope v. Department of State
View Case »
New York v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Bamaca-Cifuentes v. Attorney Gen. United States

Facts

Misternovo Bamaca-Cifuentes and his sons, natives of Guatemala, entered the U.S. at different times between 1990 and 2004. Misternovo filed a NACARA application in 1999, which was denied, leading to removal proceedings initiated by the Department of Homeland Security in 2008. After a series of hearings and appeals, the BIA dismissed their appeal in 2013. In December 2015, the petitioners filed a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions in Guatemala, which the BIA denied in June 2016.

Misternovo Bamaca-Cifuentes and his sons, natives of Guatemala, entered the U.S. at different times between 1990 and 2004. Misternovo filed a NACARA application in 1999, which was denied, leading to removal proceedings initiated by the Department of Homeland Security in 2008.

Issue

Did the BIA abuse its discretion by denying the petitioners' untimely motion to reopen removal proceedings based on a request for withholding of removal under the CAT?

Did the BIA abuse its discretion by denying the petitioners' untimely motion to reopen removal proceedings based on a request for withholding of removal under the CAT?

Rule

The time bar in 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c) applies to all motions to reopen removal proceedings, including those based on requests for withholding of removal under the CAT. The changed country conditions exception to this time bar requires evidence of material changes that were not available at the previous hearing.

The time bar in 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c) applies to all motions to reopen removal proceedings, regardless of the motion's underlying basis for relief.

Analysis

The court found that the BIA correctly applied the time bar in 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c) to the petitioners' motion to reopen, which was filed more than 90 days after the final administrative decision. The court also determined that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a material change in country conditions in Guatemala since their last hearing, thus not meeting the requirements for the changed country conditions exception.

The court found that the BIA correctly applied the time bar in 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c) to the petitioners' motion to reopen, which was filed more than 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition for review, affirming the BIA's decision that the petitioners' motion to reopen was untimely and did not meet the changed country conditions exception.

The court denied the petition for review, affirming the BIA's decision that the petitioners' motion to reopen was untimely and did not meet the changed country conditions exception.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the untimely motion to reopen.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the untimely motion to reopen.

You must be