Fernando Chinchilla-Rodriguez v. Eric Holder, Jr.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-60633 Affirmed ] Judge: CES , Judge: EGJ , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 09/02/2014 [13-60633]

Download PDF
Case: 13-60633 Document: 00512695495 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 13-60633 Summary Calendar FILED July 11, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk FERNANDO LEONEL CHINCHILLA-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A200 037 529 Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Fernando Leonel Chinchilla-Rodriguez petitions this court for review of both the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) conclusion that he had not made a prima facie showing that he was entitled to asylum and its resulting denial of his third motion to reopen, which relied upon changed circumstances in his home country, Guatemala. He argues that the BIA abused its discretion Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 13-60633 Document: 00512695495 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2014 No. 13-60633 by denying the motion because he established a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his political opinion and membership in a social group consisting of the Chinchilla family, thereby showing his entitlement to asylum. We review the denial of a motion to reopen “under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir. 2005). The BIA’s decision must be upheld as long as it is not “capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The BIA may deny a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions when, as is the case here, it concludes that the alien has not made a prima facie case that he is entitled to the relief sought. Panjwani v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 626, 632 n.7 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988)). Our review of the record and the parties’ filings shows that the challenged decision was not capricious or arbitrary. See Singh, 436 F.3d at 487. In support of his claim for asylum, Chinchilla-Rodriguez argues that attacks on high-ranking members of the Patriotic Party and people connected to these individuals show that he has a well-founded fear of persecution, as does the killing of his cousin. He is mistaken, as these incidents would not suffice to give a rank-and-file member of the Patriotic Party, such as Chinchilla-Rodriguez, an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution. See Zhao, 404 F.3d at 303. Additionally, he has not shown that these acts were sanctioned by officials. See Mikhael v. I.N.S., 115 F.3d 299, 303 n.2 (5th Cir. 1997). Chinchilla-Rodriguez’s petition for review is DENIED. 2

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?