Oscar Lara-Castillo v. Loretta Lynch
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-60485 Affirmed] Judge: PEH, Judge: EHJ, Judge: JES. Mandate pull date is 11/06/2017 [16-60485]
Date Filed: 09/14/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
September 14, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
OSCAR CRISTOBAL LARA-CASTILLO,
Also Known as Oscar Lara, Also Known as Oscar Cristobal Castillo,
Also Known as Oscar A. Lara, Also Known as Oscar Cristobal Lara,
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General,
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A201 142 232
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 09/14/2017
Oscar Lara-Castillo, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his
motion to reopen. Lara-Castillo contends that the BIA erred by determining
that he failed to establish changed country conditions based on the 2015 murder of his cousin by Honduran gang members.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen under a “highly deferential
abuse-of-discretion standard.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303−04 (5th
Cir. 2005). Under that standard, the BIA’s ruling will stand, even if this court
concludes it is erroneous, “so 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.” Id.
at 304 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Lara-Castillo’s evidence of his cousin’s 2015 death shows only a continuance of ongoing violence in Honduras, and his renewed assertion that he fears
for his safety if he returns there constitutes a change in personal circumstances
and not changed country conditions. See Singh v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 220, 222−23
& n.2 (5th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by
ruling that Lara-Castillo had failed to establish a material change in country
conditions sufficient to warrant consideration of his untimely motion to reopen.
See Zhao, 404 F.3d at 304; 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7). Given that determination,
it is not necessary to address Lara-Castillo’s assertions that he was eligible for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
The petition for review is DENIED.
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?