Ali Alkhamri v. Jeff B. Sessions, 676 F. App'x 641

Petitioners Ali Alkhamri and his adult sons Waleed and Badr, Saudi citizens, sought review of the BIA’s dismissal of their untimely motion to reopen removal proceedings.
They based the motion on a reported incident where a government courier discarded their Alien Files (A-Files) in a public dumpster and on ensuing difficulties/fear in obtaining new Saudi passports.
The Immigration Judge denied the untimely motion; the BIA dismissed the appeal and declined to reopen proceedings sua sponte.
Petitioners argued the A-Files incident and passport issues constituted changed country conditions excusing the 90‑day filing rule for reopening.
The government relied on surveillance video showing no one accessed the dumpster during the relevant time and argued there was no evidence Saudi authorities would persecute or deny passports on a protected ground; the BIA found the passport claim waived for being raised too late.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion (and limited legal/constitutional review for sua sponte denial) and denied the petition for review.

Issue	Alkhamri's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the A-Files/dumpster incident constitutes changed country conditions justifying untimely motion to reopen	The dumpster loss of A-Files is a material changed condition creating fear of future persecution	Surveillance shows no one accessed the files; incident does not establish changed conditions or prima facie eligibility	Denied — incident did not establish changed country conditions or prima facie eligibility
Whether fear of obtaining new passports amounts to changed country conditions	Petitioners may face committee review or denial of passports, creating risk if returned	No evidence Saudi government would deny passports or punish them on a protected ground	Denied — no evidence of passport denial or persecution on protected ground
Whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying reopening sua sponte	Petitioners sought sua sponte reopening based on the same facts	BIA declined because petitioners waived the passport loss claim by raising it first on appeal	Denied — BIA did not commit legal or constitutional error in refusing sua sponte reopening
Whether evidence (A-Files, passport fear) would establish prima facie eligibility for relief	New evidence, combined with prior record, establishes prima facie eligibility	New evidence insufficient under standard for reopening	Denied — petitioners failed to meet prima facie standard

Meza-Vallejos v. Holder, 669 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for motion to reopen is abuse of discretion)
Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575 (9th Cir. 2016) (limited review of BIA sua sponte denials for legal or constitutional error)
Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2005) (new evidence must, with the prior record, establish prima facie eligibility for relief)
Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to challenge an issue in the opening brief constitutes waiver)