Carlos Paredes-Riveros v. Attorney General United States
17-1695
| 3rd Cir. | Jan 9, 2018Background
- Paredes-Riveros, a Peruvian national, was ordered removed in 2009 after an IJ found him ineligible for asylum, withholding, and CAT; the BIA affirmed.
- He filed a timely first motion to reopen that was denied; the denial became final and an earlier petition to this Court was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- In November 2016 Paredes filed a numerically barred and untimely motion asking the BIA to sua sponte reopen so he could seek adjustment of status based on his daughter’s naturalization and request a TRIG exemption; he also sought reopening based on changed country conditions in Peru to pursue asylum/withholding/CAT relief.
- The BIA denied the motion in full, concluding that potential eligibility for adjustment after a final order is not, by itself, an ‘‘exceptional situation’’ warranting sua sponte reopening, and that evidence did not show materially changed conditions in Peru.
- Paredes petitioned for review, arguing the BIA relied on an incorrect legal premise regarding TRIG/adjustment eligibility and abused its discretion by failing to meaningfully consider changed-country-condition evidence.
- The Panel held it lacked jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of sua sponte reopening except where the BIA relied on an incorrect legal premise; it concluded no such error occurred and found no abuse of discretion in the BIA’s consideration of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court can review the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening | Paredes: BIA relied on an incorrect legal premise regarding TRIG/adjustment and so review is permitted | Government: BIA’s decision is discretionary and generally unreviewable; no legal error | Held: Review limited; no incorrect legal premise shown, so denial is unreviewable |
| Whether potential post-order eligibility for adjustment (via TRIG exemption) qualifies as an "exceptional situation" for sua sponte reopening | Paredes: New eligibility is exceptional and warrants reopening | BIA/Gov: New eligibility is common and not automatically exceptional | Held: BIA reasonably treated post-order eligibility as not automatically exceptional; even if exceptional, BIA need not reopen |
| Whether evidence shows materially changed country conditions to excuse untimely, numerically barred motion | Paredes: Evidence and arguments show changed conditions in Peru supporting reopening for asylum/withholding/CAT | BIA/Gov: Evidence shows Peruvian authorities long combated Shining Path and conditions are not materially different since 2009 | Held: BIA considered and cited evidence and reasonably concluded conditions were not materially different; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether BIA abused discretion by failing to address arguments/evidence | Paredes: BIA ignored favorable evidence and failed to meaningfully consider submissions | BIA/Gov: BIA need not address every point but must indicate consideration and explain rejections | Held: BIA met the standard—it referenced exhibits, explained rejection, and did not abuse its discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Chehazeh v. Attorney General, 666 F.3d 118 (3d Cir. 2012) (BIA has discretion to decline sua sponte reopening; only limited review when based on incorrect legal premise)
- Calle-Vujiles v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 472 (3d Cir. 2003) (BIA’s suo motu reopening power is discretionary)
- Sang Goo Park v. Attorney General, 846 F.3d 645 (3d Cir. 2017) (presence of an exceptional situation does not compel BIA to reopen)
- Shardar v. Attorney General, 503 F.3d 308 (3d Cir. 2007) (BIA abuses discretion when it fails to consider and appraise material evidence)
- Fei Yan Zhu v. Attorney General, 744 F.3d 268 (3d Cir. 2014) (BIA must indicate consideration of evidence and explain rejection; need not parse every point)
- Filja v. Gonzalez, 447 F.3d 241 (3d Cir. 2006) (BIA need only consider issues raised and announce decision sufficient for review)