Jutus v. Holder, Jr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14467
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Guatemalan native, Sutuj entered the US illegally in 1994 and faced removal proceedings in 1998 seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT.
- IJ found Sutuj unpersuasive for relief but credited credibility; country conditions improving due to 1996 peace accords.
- BIA affirmed without opinion and granted voluntary departure within 30 days.
- In 2011 Sutuj moved to reopen based on purported changed country conditions and new evidence including a human-rights report and a personal affidavit.
- BIA denied the motion to reopen, ruling no material change in country conditions and no prima facie case for asylum or relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA abused discretion denying motion to reopen | Sutuj contends changed conditions exist and evidence is new and material | BIA properly weighed evidence; no material change or prima facie relief case | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Prima facie eligibility for asylum from changed circumstances | Extortion as new risk tied to protected grounds supports asylum | Extortion not linked to protected ground; past persecution not shown anew | BIA did not err; no prima facie case for asylum |
| Changed country conditions must be material to underlying relief | Guatemala crime and gangs materially alter risk to Sutuj | Record shows no material change related to protected grounds | No material change; conditions not linked to protected grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Fesseha v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2003) (motions to reopen disfavored; discretion to deny even with prima facie case)
- Raza v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 125 (1st Cir. 2007) (changed-country-condition evidence must be material to relief)
- Larngar v. Holder, 562 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2009) (limits and relaxation of 90-day rule for changed circumstances)
- Abudu v. INS, 485 U.S. 94 (Supreme Court 1988) (threshold requirements for asylum; prima facie case standards)
- Escobar v. Holder, 698 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2012) (extortion not a protected ground; generalized crime not per se persecution)
- Smith v. Holder, 627 F.3d 427 (1st Cir. 2010) (Board may deny motion to reopen even where prima facie case shown)
- Mendez-Barrera v. Holder, 602 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2010) (well-founded fear standard; nexus to protected ground required)
- Lopez-Castro v. Holder, 577 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2009) (collects standards for asylum based on other grounds)
- Orelien v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2006) (government action/inaction nexus required for persecution)