Aldana-Salguero v. Garland, 21-9516

Petitioner Karla Mariela Aldana-Salguero, a Guatemalan national, conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal (restriction on removal), and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection based on membership in a particular social group: single mothers.
In Guatemala Petitioner was assaulted by a neighbor, received extortion letters and threats to her and her children, made two payments, and later learned her brother-in-law was murdered (cause unknown at hearing).
The immigration judge denied asylum and withholding because Petitioner failed to show nexus between the persecution and her status as a single mother, and denied CAT relief for lack of evidence that public officials would acquiesce in torture.
The Board summarily affirmed; Petitioner did not seek judicial review but moved to reopen seven months later, relying primarily on a declaration from her sister describing continuing extortion at Petitioner’s former house, the sister’s husband’s killing, and the sister’s subsequent flight to the United States.
The Board found the motion untimely under the 90-day rule and held the sister’s declaration did not establish changed circumstances that were material; the court reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and affirmed the Board.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Board abused discretion by denying motion to reopen as untimely under changed-circumstances exception	Aldana-Salguero: sister's declaration is new and shows changed country circumstances warranting reopening	Board/Government: evidence is not new or material; declaration lacks timing and does not alter prior findings	Denied — no abuse of discretion; evidence not material
Whether sister’s declaration establishes nexus to protected group (single mothers) for asylum/withholding	Declaration shows extortion continued and targeted family/children, implying risk tied to family status	Extortion targeted sister while married; declaration does not show extortionists target single mothers specifically	Denied — declaration does not cure nexus failure
Whether new evidence shows likelihood of torture with public-official acquiescence for CAT	Petitioner: new threats and killings show risk and possible acquiescence	Government: declaration contains no reference to public officials or acquiescence	Denied — evidence fails to show governmental acquiescence
Standard of review and whether Board provided adequate reasoning	Aldana-Salguero: Board failed to recognize new, material evidence	Board/Government: Board provided rational explanation and applied legal tests	Denied — abuse-of-discretion review affirms Board’s rational decision

Qiu v. Sessions, 870 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir. 2017) (standard: review of motion-to-reopen denials is for abuse of discretion)
Rodas-Orellana v. Holder, 780 F.3d 982 (10th Cir. 2015) (defines refugee and notes withholding burden is higher than asylum)
Cruz-Funez v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1187 (10th Cir. 2005) (CAT relief does not require nexus to a protected ground)
Maatougui v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 2013) (materiality standard: evidence must likely change the result)