Eluid Villatoro-Ochoa v. Loretta E. Lynch
844 F.3d 993
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Villatoro-Ochoa, a Guatemalan evangelical pastor, alleges gangs threatened and extorted him for discouraging recruitment and drug sales; he entered the U.S. without inspection in 1998.
- He applied for withholding of removal; the IJ denied relief in October 2009 (finding him not credible and not meeting the burden), and the BIA affirmed in February 2012.
- Villatoro-Ochoa filed a motion to reopen on January 18, 2013—11 months after the 90-day statutory deadline—seeking to rely on changed country conditions in Guatemala.
- He submitted a new asylum/withholding/CAT application, affidavits, country condition reports, and alleged four family members were killed by gangs (two deaths pre-2009; two in 2010–2011).
- The BIA denied reopening, concluding the evidence did not show a material change in country conditions after the 2009 IJ decision and that some deaths were previously available evidence.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed the BIA, holding the BIA gave a rational explanation and did not ignore or distort the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the untimely motion to reopen is excused by changed country conditions | New evidence (family killings, continued gang violence, country reports) shows material change after 2009 | Evidence shows ongoing gang violence but not a material change; some deaths predated 2009 and later deaths reflect same conditions | Denied — BIA reasonably concluded no material change after 2009 |
| Whether BIA considered all submitted evidence (Due Process) | BIA failed to consider all evidence, violating due process | BIA considered the record and provided a reasoned decision | Denied — record shows BIA considered evidence and explained its ruling |
| Whether BIA abused discretion in denying motion to reopen | BIA misconstrued evidence and thus abused discretion | BIA gave a rational explanation and did not ignore or distort evidence | Denied — abuse of discretion not shown |
| Whether petitioner established prima facie eligibility for asylum/withholding/CAT | Post-2009 killings and reports show eligibility for relief | Petitioner failed to show changed conditions or prima facie eligibility | Court did not reach merits of prima facie claim because alternative ground (no changed conditions) sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Lynch, 785 F.3d 1262 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard for BIA review of motions to reopen and application of changed-conditions exception)
- Sidikhouya v. Gonzales, 407 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2005) (motions to reopen reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2008) (motions to reopen are disfavored due to finality concerns)
- Chen v. Holder, 751 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 2014) (BIA may deny reopening if changed conditions not shown or applicant fails to show prima facie eligibility)
- Hanan v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 760 (8th Cir. 2008) (a denial of due process requires record support that evidence was ignored)