Jose Medrano-Gaytan v. Loretta Lynch
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A078-508-814. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999777266].. [15-1912]
Appeal: 15-1912
Doc: 30
Filed: 03/18/2016
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1912
JOSE RODOLFO MEDRANO-GAYTAN, a/k/a Rodolfo Medrano-Gaytan,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted:
February 23, 2016
Decided:
March 18, 2016
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner.
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant
Director, Brett F. Kinney, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-1912
Doc: 30
Filed: 03/18/2016
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Jose Rodolfo Medrano-Gaytan, a native and citizen of El
Salvador,
petitions
Immigration
for
Appeals
review
(Board)
of
an
order
dismissing
his
of
the
Board
appeal
from
immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying his motion to reopen.
of
the
We
deny the petition for review.
An alien may file one motion to reopen within 90 days of
the
entry
of
a
final
order
of
removal.
8
U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C) (2012); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (2015).
This time limit does not apply if the basis for the motion is to
seek asylum or withholding of removal “based on changed country
conditions, . . . if such evidence is material and was not
available and would not have been discovered or presented at the
previous
proceeding.”
8
U.S.C.
§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii)
accord 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(c)(4)(i) (2015).
(2012);
The alien bears the
burden of establishing changed country conditions.
See Wanrong
Lin v. Holder, 771 F.3d 177, 185 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting that
alien’s
burden
“was
to
show
that
country
conditions
in
[his
country] were materially different from those conditions at the
time of his original removal proceedings”);
In re S-Y-G-, 24 I.
& N. Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007).
We review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of
discretion.
8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b); Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d
397, 400 (4th Cir. 2009).
The “denial of a motion to reopen is
2
Appeal: 15-1912
Doc: 30
Filed: 03/18/2016
Pg: 3 of 4
reviewed with extreme deference, given that motions to reopen
are disfavored because every delay works to the advantage of the
deportable
States.”
alien
who
wishes
merely
to
remain
in
the
United
Sadhvani v. Holder, 596 F.3d 180, 182 (4th Cir. 2009)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
The motion
“shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to
be held if the motion is granted and shall be supported by
affidavits
and
other
evidentiary
material.”
8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(3) (2015).
We
also
recognize
three
independent
grounds
on
motion to reopen removal proceedings may be denied:
which
a
“(1) the
alien has not established a prima facie case for the underlying
substantive
relief
sought;
(2)
the
alien
has
not
introduced
previously unavailable, material evidence; and (3) where relief
is
discretionary,
the
alien
would
discretionary grant of relief.”
not
be
entitled
to
the
Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227,
234 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05
(1988)).
the
We will “reverse the denial of such a motion only if
[Board]
law.”
acted
arbitrarily,
irrationally,
or
contrary
Prasad v. Holder, 776 F.3d 222, 225 (4th Cir. 2015).
to
Our
review is limited to “the administrative record on which the
order of removal is based.”
8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (2012);
Crespin-Valladares v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 123 n.3 (4th Cir.
2011).
3
Appeal: 15-1912
Doc: 30
Filed: 03/18/2016
Pg: 4 of 4
We conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding
that
Medrano-Gaytan
did
not
establish
a
change
in
country
conditions that would warrant excusing the 90-day time limit for
motions to reopen.
Accordingly, because Medrano-Gaytan’s motion
to reopen was untimely, and he did not show a material change in
country
dispense
conditions,
with
contentions
are
oral
we
deny
argument
adequately
the
petition
because
presented
in
the
the
for
review.
facts
We
and
legal
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?