Jaime Alonso Rodriguez v. Merrick Garland
990 F.3d 1205
| 9th Cir. | 2021Background
- Rodriguez, a Mexican national, was ordered removed in 2003 and deported.
- In 2012 he attempted to reenter the U.S. by boat; after apprehension he and his wife privately identified smugglers to law enforcement.
- In 2016 Rodriguez moved to reopen his 2003 removal proceedings, asserting a "hybrid" claim: changed personal circumstances (now a perceived "snitch") plus changed country conditions in Mexico, seeking asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
- The Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied the motion, finding Rodriguez failed to show material changes in country conditions since 2003; the BIA also alternatively held he did not make out a prima facie claim for asylum, withholding, or CAT protection.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed, holding that evidence did not demonstrate the required changed country conditions and that personal-change evidence alone is insufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen for failure to show changed country conditions | Rodriguez argued a "hybrid" claim: his cooperation made him a target now, and country conditions in Mexico have changed since 2003 to make that risk material | The government and BIA argued the record lacked evidence of material changes in Mexico since 2003 relevant to retaliation against informants | BIA did not abuse its discretion; denial affirmed because petitioner failed to show changed country conditions required to reopen |
| Whether changed personal circumstances alone can support reopening | Rodriguez contended his new status as a perceived "snitch" is a changed circumstance that, combined with general country reports, justifies reopening | BIA argued personal changes must be tied to demonstrable, related changes in country conditions; personal change alone is insufficient | Held that personal circumstances alone are insufficient; petitioner must show actual changed country conditions (Chandra rule) |
| Whether Rodriguez made a prima facie showing for asylum/withholding/CAT | Rodriguez claimed imputed political opinion/PSG and risk of torture upon return | BIA (alternatively) found insufficient evidence of imputed political opinion/PSG membership, insufficient fear of persecution, and expert evidence speculative for CAT | BIA’s alternative denial of prima facie relief was affirmed (court relied on independent ground of failure to show changed country conditions and did not reach merits) |
Key Cases Cited
- Chandra v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2014) (changed country conditions required; personal changes relevant only if tied to country changes)
- Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2008) (four-part test for motions to reopen based on changed country conditions)
- Martinez v. Barr, 941 F.3d 907 (9th Cir. 2019) (standard: review of denial of motion to reopen for abuse of discretion)
- Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770 (9th Cir. 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard: arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law)
- Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2010) (continuing or similar country conditions do not demonstrate a qualitative change)
- Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (analysis of particular social group claims)
- INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (U.S. 1988) (agency may deny motions to reopen on independent grounds)