Gabriel Saldana-Salgado v. Merrick Garland, 19-70486

Gabriel Saldana‑Salgado filed a second motion to reopen immigration proceedings more than 90 days after the final administrative decision.
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) limits petitioners to one motion to reopen filed within 90 days, but § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) creates an exception for changed country conditions.
To invoke the exception, petitioner must satisfy a four‑part test (changed conditions, materiality, unavailability of evidence previously, and prima facie eligibility for relief).
Saldana relied on U.S. State Department travel advisories and evidence related to his son’s withholding‑of‑removal case to show changed conditions and eligibility.
The BIA denied reopening, finding no material change in country conditions relevant to petitioner’s fear of persecution by a single cartel member and that the son’s incidents predated petitioner’s prior hearing; the Ninth Circuit denied review, concluding no abuse of discretion.
The panel treated the case as suitable for decision without oral argument and issued an unpublished disposition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioner’s second motion is exempt from the 90‑day/one‑motion bar under the changed‑conditions exception	Saldana: evidence shows changed country conditions and prima facie eligibility, so exception applies	Government/BIA: motion is time‑barred unless petitioner meets the four‑part test; he failed to do so	Denied — BIA reasonably concluded petitioner did not show a material change or prima facie eligibility
Whether the BIA abused its discretion in its denial (insufficient explanation)	Saldana: BIA failed to adequately address his evidence	BIA: obligated to consider issues and give a decision sufficient for review, not an exhaustive opinion	Denied — BIA sufficiently acknowledged the evidence and stated specific grounds for denial

Rodriguez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1205 (9th Cir. 2021) (articulates the four‑part test for changed country conditions exception to reopening limits)
Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2008) (same four‑part framework for reopening based on changed conditions)
Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604 (9th Cir. 2014) (discusses standards for motions to reopen based on changed country conditions)
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2010) (BIA need not write an exhaustive analysis but must show it considered the issues)
Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799 (9th Cir. 2004) (clarifies review standards for agency explanations)
Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2016) (requires comparison of country circumstances at prior hearing and at time of motion to determine material change)