Karen Amaya-Briones v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-60656 Affirmed] Judge: EGJ, Judge: PRO, Judge: CH. Mandate pull date is 11/13/2017 [16-60656]

Case: 16-60656

Document: 00514167041

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/22/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-60656
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
September 22, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

KAREN AMAYA-BRIONES,
Petitioner
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A098 285 394
Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Karen Amaya-Briones, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions this
court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying
her second motion to reopen in absentia removal proceedings. She argues that
the immigration judge (IJ) erred by determining that her motion, which was
based on changed country conditions, was barred by time and number

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-60656

Document: 00514167041

Page: 2

Date Filed: 09/22/2017

No. 16-60656
limitations. She also argues that she has made a prima facie showing of
eligibility for relief from removal.
This court reviews the BIA’s order and will consider the IJ’s underlying
decision if it influenced the BIA’s determination. Gomez-Palacios v. Holder,
560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009). Here, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision but
provided independent reasons for that decision. In so doing, the BIA treated
Amaya-Briones’s second motion to reopen as a motion based on changed
country conditions. Thus, this court will not review the IJ’s treatment of the
motion. See Gomez-Palacios, 560 F.3d at 358.
The BIA determined, inter alia, that Amaya-Briones failed to establish
changed country conditions in Honduras since the time of her removal. None
of the evidence submitted by Amaya-Briones provided any meaningful
comparison between relevant conditions in Honduras in 2004 and 2015. See
Ramos-Lopez v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 1024, 1026 (5th Cir. 2016); Panjwani v.
Gonzales, 401 F.3d 626, 632 (5th Cir. 2005). Thus, the BIA did not abuse its
discretion in denying the motion to reopen. See Ramos-Lopez, 823 F.3d at
1026; Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder, 772 F.3d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 2014). We
therefore do not reach Amaya-Briones’s argument that she established prima
facie eligibility for relief from removal.
Amaya-Briones’s petition for review is DENIED.

2