Mejia-Ramaja v. Lynch, 806 F.3d 19

Background

Petitioner José Miguel Mejía-Ramaja, a Guatemalan national, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2003 and was placed in removal proceedings around 2005; he conceded removability.
At a December 22, 2010 merits hearing the Immigration Judge denied his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT and ordered removal to Guatemala.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied his appeal on February 26, 2013; Mejía did not seek judicial review, so the removal order became final.
On March 31, 2014 — more than a year after the BIA decision and well past the 90-day deadline for motions to reopen — Mejía filed a motion to reopen based on alleged changed country conditions in Guatemala and new evidence (including a 2013 armed attack on his family’s gas station).
The BIA denied the motion to reopen as untimely and held Mejía failed to show new and material evidence of changed country conditions. Mejía petitioned for judicial review in the First Circuit.

Issues

Issue	Mejía’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether the BIA abused its discretion by denying the motion to reopen as untimely under the 90-day rule and the changed-circumstances exception	Mejía contended country conditions in Guatemala worsened and he submitted new, material evidence (2013 gas-station attack) not available at the 2010 hearing	The motion was filed well after 90 days and the evidence merely continued previously documented patterns of crime and violence, so the changed-circumstances exception does not apply	The First Circuit held the BIA did not abuse its discretion: the motion was untimely and the evidence did not show material changed conditions
Whether the 2013 incident amounted to new material evidence demonstrating changed country conditions sufficient to reopen	The attack on Mejía’s gas station exemplified deterioration and was new, material evidence	The incident was one more instance of longstanding crime/violence and therefore did not show a material change	Denied — incident did not demonstrate changed conditions beyond what was already before the IJ
Whether the BIA applied the wrong legal standard on the merits of the reopening motion	Mejía argued the BIA misapplied the legal standard evaluating the merits	Government defended the BIA’s reasoning and stressed timeliness disposed of the case	Court declined to reach this merits argument because denying as untimely was not an abuse of discretion
Whether the court should remand for further consideration	Mejía requested reconsideration/remand based on alleged errors	Government opposed remand, arguing BIA’s timeliness ruling was adequate	Denied — no basis to find abuse of discretion or to remand

Key Cases Cited

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (procedural standard: BIA motions-to-reopen reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Xue Su Wang v. Holder, 750 F.3d 87 (First Circuit standard for reviewing BIA denials of motions to reopen)
Meng Hua Wan v. Holder, 776 F.3d 52 (timeliness rule for motions to reopen)
Perez v. Holder, 740 F.3d 57 (new and material evidence requirement for changed-country-conditions exception)
Sugiarto v. Holder, 761 F.3d 102 (continuation of prior conditions is insufficient to establish changed country conditions)
Haizem Liu v. Holder, 727 F.3d 53 (comparison of evidence at merits hearing to evidence submitted with motion to reopen)
Fen Tjong Lie v. Holder, 729 F.3d 28 (changed-conditions analysis)
Jutus v. Holder, 723 F.3d 105 (affirming denial where evidence did not show material change)
Smith v. Holder, 627 F.3d 427 (examples where specific incidents supported findings of changed conditions)
Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 942 (incident-based evidence can sometimes indicate broader deterioration)
Ananeh-Firempong v. INS, 766 F.2d 621 (incident evidence relevant to country-condition assessments)