Oscar Lara-Castillo v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-60485 Affirmed] Judge: PEH, Judge: EHJ, Judge: JES. Mandate pull date is 11/06/2017 [16-60485]

Case: 16-60485

Document: 00514156321

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/14/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-60485
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
September 14, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

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,
Petitioner,
versus
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
*

Case: 16-60485

Document: 00514156321

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/14/2017

No. 16-60485
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
Torture.
The petition for review is DENIED.

2