Case: 18-60122 Document: 00514801418 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 18-60122 January 18, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JAVIER ENRIQUE GUERRA PORTILLO; MARIELA JOSEFINA PARRA GARCIA; JONAS DAVID GUERRA PARRA; JEANVIER ENMANUEL GUERRA PARRA, Petitioners v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting U.S. Attorney General, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A087 352 525 BIA No. A087 352 526 BIA No. A087 352 527 BIA No. A087 352 528 Before BENAVIDES, HAYNES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Javier Enrique Guerra Portillo, along with his wife, Mariela Josefina Parra Garcia, and their two children, Jonas David Guerra Parra and Jeanvier Enmanuel Guerra Parra, petition this court for review of the decision of the * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 18-60122 Document: 00514801418 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/18/2019 No. 18-60122 Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their motion to reopen. They argue that the BIA erred in concluding that they did not present new, material evidence showing that they would be singled out for persecution based on their Jehovah’s Witness religion and their political neutrality. They also argue that the BIA erred in concluding that they failed to make a prima facie showing of eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). This court reviews the denial of a motion to reopen under the “highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The court will “uphold the decision if 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.’” Lowe v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 713, 715 (5th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). The court will affirm the BIA’s factual findings “unless the evidence ‘compels a contrary conclusion.’” Nunez v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 499, 505 (5th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted.) A petitioner may file a motion to reopen beyond the 90-day limitations period if the motion is based on changed country conditions and the petitioner submits “new facts” supported by “material” evidence that was unavailable or undiscoverable at the prior proceeding. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1)-(3); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). To establish changed country conditions, the petitioner must present evidence showing “a meaningful comparison” between conditions in his home country at the time of the motion to reopen versus the time of the removal hearing. Nunez, 882 F.3d at 508. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion to reopen. See Lugo-Resendez, 831 F.3d at 340. Although they submitted 2 Case: 18-60122 Document: 00514801418 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/18/2019 No. 18-60122 evidence concerning the political ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals