Gonzalez-Martinez v. Bondi
23-3386
9th Cir.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Martin Gonzalez-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought review of the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings.
- The motion was filed more than 90 days after the final removal order (June 3, 2016), generally making it untimely.
- Gonzalez-Martinez claimed his motion qualified under the exception for changed country conditions in Mexico relevant to asylum or withholding of removal.
- To prevail, he needed to show material evidence of changed conditions in Mexico, unavailable at previous hearings, and his prima facie eligibility for relief.
- The BIA found the motion inadequately supported: he failed to provide required affidavits and supporting documentation, attaching only block quotes from various sources without proper citation or inclusion of underlying evidence.
- The BIA concluded his submission did not constitute actual evidence pursuant to governing statutes and regulations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of motion to reopen | Gonzalez-Martinez argued his motion fell within the exception for changed country conditions. | BIA argued the motion was untimely and inadequately supported; exception does not apply. | Court agreed with BIA; motion untimely and exception not met. |
| Adequacy of supporting evidence | Claimed block quotes and references suffice as evidence. | Asserted that regulations require affidavits and documentation, not block quotes or incomplete citations. | Court found Gonzalez-Martinez failed to provide sufficient evidence. |
| Prima facie eligibility for relief | Implied eligibility by referencing conditions in Mexico. | Argued no concrete evidence or properly submitted application/documentation for relief. | Court held petitioner did not show prima facie eligibility. |
| Abuse of discretion by BIA | Contended BIA misapplied the legal standard for motions to reopen. | BIA asserted denial was proper under the law and regulations. | Court found no abuse of discretion by BIA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fonseca-Fonseca v. Garland, 76 F.4th 1176 (9th Cir. 2023) (standard for reviewing denial of motion to reopen)
- Lara-Torres v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2004) (abuse of discretion standard in immigration cases)
- Hernandez-Ortiz v. Garland, 32 F.4th 794 (9th Cir. 2022) (requirements for reopening based on changed country conditions)