Garcia-Aguilar v. Sessions, 913 F.3d 215

Maria Leticia Garcia-Aguilar, a Mexican national who entered the U.S. illegally in 2005, was ordered removed after IJs denied her motions to suppress evidence in 2009 and again in 2012; the BIA upheld the 2012 decision and this court denied prior judicial review in 2015.
In August 2017 she filed an untimely motion to reopen, asserting materially changed country conditions in Mexico (increased cartel/gang murders and kidnappings) and newly asserted eligibility for asylum based on imputed American nationality (she has a U.S.-born child and long U.S. residence).
The BIA denied the motion as untimely and held the submitted evidence did not establish materially changed country conditions since the merits hearing (the BIA treated the 2012 hearing as the operative baseline), and that Garcia-Aguilar had not shown a nexus between feared harm and a protected ground.
The petitioner sought judicial review limited to the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen; the First Circuit reviews BIA denials of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion.
The court concluded the 2012 merits hearing is the appropriate baseline, found the petitioner failed to show material, newly unavailable evidence of changed country conditions or that any change uniquely affected her because of imputed U.S. nationality, and denied the petition for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness / Changed country conditions (threshold for untimely motion to reopen)	Garcia-Aguilar argued conditions in Mexico worsened between 2012 and 2017, showing material change warranting reopening.	Government argued the motion was untimely and evidence showed persistent violence, not a material change since 2012.	Denied: petitioner failed to show material changed conditions since the 2012 baseline.
Baseline merits hearing for assessing changed conditions	Garcia-Aguilar did not clearly pick a baseline; implied 2012 was relevant.	Government contended 2012 merits hearing is the proper baseline.	2012 merits hearing is the operative baseline.
Nexus / imputed nationality (whether harm would be on a protected ground)	Petitioner argued she would be targeted due to imputed American nationality (U.S.-born child and long U.S. residence).	Government pointed to lack of evidence that criminal groups target U.S. citizens based on nationality.	Held: petitioner failed to show a nexus or that changed conditions would uniquely affect her as an imputed U.S. national.
Whether BIA adequately considered evidence	Petitioner claimed the BIA ignored or did not meaningfully consider her submissions.	Government maintained BIA addressed evidence and reasonably concluded it showed persistent conditions.	Held: BIA sufficiently considered the record; no duty to parse every document; decision was reasoned.

Sihotang v. Sessions, 900 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2018) (standard and deference for motions to reopen; two-part burden for untimely motions)
Xiao He Chen v. Lynch, 825 F.3d 83 (1st Cir. 2016) (requirements for showing changed country conditions)
Sánchez-Romero v. Sessions, 865 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2017) (distinguishing persistent bad conditions from materially changed conditions)
Smith v. Holder, 627 F.3d 427 (1st Cir. 2010) (applicability of asylum claims in motions to reopen and nexus/materiality discussion)
Raza v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 125 (1st Cir. 2007) (deference to BIA on motions to reopen and adequacy of agency reasoning)