Martinez Lopez v. Holder
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 291
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Martinez-Lopez, a Salvadoran national, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2004 and faced removal proceedings three years later.
- He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; the IJ found no basis for withholding based on gang-recruitment pressure and the petition was denied.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ, ruling that resisting gang recruitment does not constitute a particular social group warranting withholding of removal.
- Martinez-Lopez did not seek judicial review of the BIA’s withholding decision but timely filed a motion to reconsider seeking to raise new theories (family as a particular social group and religious beliefs) for the first time.
- The BIA denied the motion to reconsider as improvidently raising new, previously unasserted theories of relief and not identifying error in the prior decision.
- The First Circuit reviews the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion and ultimately affirms the denial, emphasizing limits on introducing new grounds via reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a motion to reconsider introduce new relief grounds not previously asserted? | Martinez-Lopez argues Cerna allowed new arguments; the motion should permit new theories. | BIA and circuit emphasize motions to reconsider must cure errors in prior decision and not introduce new grounds. | No; motion cannot rely on new grounds not previously asserted. |
| Is the standard for reviewing a BIA motion to reconsider abuse of discretion? | Asserts deferential standard should protect his belated theories if legally sound. | Abuse-of-discretion review controls; must show irrational, arbitrary, or impermissible basis. | Yes; review is for abuse of discretion. |
| Did the BIA properly apply the Cerna and O-S-G framework to limit reconsideration? | Claims BIA misapplied Cerna to bar reconsideration of new arguments. | BIA correctly followed O-S-G and current regulations limiting new issues on reconsideration. | Yes; BIA properly limited reconsideration to previously raised issues. |
| Did the petition present new, independently cognizable grounds of relief? | Family membership and religious beliefs could support withholding of removal. | New theories not raised during IJ/BIA proceedings are improper on reconsideration. | Yes; new grounds were not permitted on reconsideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Cerna, 20 I. & N. Dec. 399 (BIA 1991) (motion to reconsider allows cure of errors but not new relief grounds)
- In re O-S-G, 24 I. & N. Dec. 56 (BIA 2006) (additional legal arguments cannot introduce unraised grounds of relief)
- INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (U.S. Supreme Court 1992) (abuse-of-discretion standard for agency decisions)
- Liu v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2009) (deferential review of BIA decisions in immigration context)
- Zhang v. INS, 348 F.3d 289 (1st Cir. 2003) (abuse-of-discretion standard and standard of review in immigration matters)
- Mendez-Barrera v. Holder, 602 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2010) (agency can restrict reconsideration to previously raised issues)