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

jurisdictionappealhearingmotionburden of proof
jurisdictionappealhearingmotionburden of proofdue processasylum

Related Cases

Mbonga v. Garland
View Case »
Ek Hong Djie v. Garland
View Case »
_Sadhvani v. Chertoff
View Case »
Vemuri v. Napolitano
View Case »
Doyle v. Department of Justice
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ramos-Lopez v. Lynch

Facts

Sonia Ramos-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, filed a petition to review the BIA's decisions that dismissed her appeal from an immigration judge's denial of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings and denied her motion for reconsideration. She argued that conditions in Guatemala had changed significantly since her removal hearing in 1998, citing increased violence against women and remilitarization of the country. However, the BIA found that she did not adequately compare the conditions at the time of her removal with those at the time of her motion to reopen.

Sonia Ramos-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions this court to review the decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that (1) dismissed her appeal from an immigration judge's denial of her motion to reopen in absentia removal proceedings and (2) denied her subsequent motion for reconsideration. In support of her first claim, Ramos-Lopez contends that she presented evidence of changed country conditions that was material and unavailable in 1998. Specifically, she argues that her evidence showed that the violence against women in Guatemala has escalated and is now called femicide or feminicide; that the country has remilitarized since the election of a new president, Otto Perez Molina; and that she is at risk due to her brother-in-law's past involvement with a drug cartel. Also, she contends that the BIA violated her due process rights by failing to consider all of the evidence she submitted.

Issue

Did the BIA err in dismissing Ramos-Lopez's appeal of the denial of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings, and does the court have jurisdiction to review the denial of her motion for reconsideration?

Did the BIA err in dismissing Ramos-Lopez's appeal of the denial of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings, and does the court have jurisdiction to review the denial of her motion for reconsideration?

Rule

The court reviews the denial of a motion to reopen under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. A motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days unless it is based on changed country conditions that are material and were not available at the previous proceeding.

We review 'the denial of a motion to reopen under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.' See Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder, 772 F.3d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). There is no dispute that Ramos-Lopez filed her motion to reopen well beyond the 90-day period set forth in 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). However, there are no time or number limitations on filing motions to reopen if the reason for the motion is to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief and the motion 'is based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality . . . if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.' 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. 1003.23(b)(4)(i).

Analysis

The court determined that Ramos-Lopez did not present material evidence of changed country conditions that would justify reopening her case. Specifically, she failed to compare the conditions in Guatemala at the time of her 1998 removal hearing with those at the time of her motion to reopen in 2013. The court also noted that her claims regarding her brother-in-law's involvement with a drug cartel only reflected a change in her personal circumstances, not a change in country conditions.

Although the documents Ramos-Lopez submitted with her motion to reopen indicate that the number of women murdered in Guatemala has increased and decreased at various intervals over the years and that the number murdered has more recently been increasing, Ramos-Lopez did not compare, in any meaningful way, the conditions existing when she filed her motion to reopen in 2013 with those at the time of her 1998 removal hearing and how those general conditions relate to her specific claims. Therefore, as to her claims of femicide, she has failed to present material evidence of changed country conditions. See 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); Panjwani v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 626, 632-33 (5th Cir. 2005). Likewise, as to her assertions regarding the remilitarization of Guatemala after the election of Otto Perez Molina, her briefing does not compare, in any meaningful way, the conditions in 1998 and 2013. See Panjwani, 401 F.3d at 632-33. Her claim regarding her brother-in-law's past involvement with a drug cartel is also unavailing as it shows only a change in her personal circumstances. See Zhao v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 405, 407 (7th Cir. 2005). Thus, as to these issues, Ramos-Lopez has failed to present material evidence of changed country conditions. See 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); Panjwani, 401 F.3d at 632-33.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition for review in part and dismissed it in part for lack of jurisdiction, affirming the BIA's decision.

In light of the foregoing and the heavy burden to show changed country conditions for purposes of reopening immigration proceedings, see Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 549 (5th Cir 2006), the BIA did not abuse its discretion in agreeing with the immigration judge that Ramos-Lopez had not made the required showing, see Panjwani, 401 F.3d at 632-33. Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion, this court need not reach Ramos-Lopez's claims regarding her eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT. Ramos-Lopez also cannot establish a due process violation because 'there is no liberty interest at stake in a motion to reopen.' Altamirano-Lopez, 435 F.3d at 550-51.

Who won?

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) prevailed because the court found that Ramos-Lopez did not meet the burden of proof required to reopen her case and that her petition for reconsideration was untimely.

The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) prevailed because the court found that Ramos-Lopez did not meet the burden of proof required to reopen her case and that her petition for reconsideration was untimely.

You must be