Oscar Porras v. Eric Holder, Jr.
572 F. App'x 436
6th Cir.2014Background
- Oscar O. Porras, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2002 and was ordered removed in March 2011; he received voluntary departure that he failed to timely use.
- In July 2011 he filed a motion to reopen with a new asylum application, citing fear of returning to Mexico based on changed circumstances.
- The motion relied principally on a June 5, 2011 shooting of Porras’s brother in Mexico, in which attackers used Porras’s name and called him a “nortenos.”
- The IJ denied reopening as untimely (motion filed after the 90-day deadline) and held the brother’s shooting was a changed personal circumstance, not a changed country condition that would excuse the deadline. The BIA affirmed without opinion.
- Porras attempted on review to introduce country reports (Human Rights Watch, State Department) not in the administrative record; the court declined to consider materials outside the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether motion to reopen was timely or excused by changed country conditions | Porras: attack on his brother shows changed country conditions and supports reopening for asylum | Gov’t: single, personal attack on a relative does not show changed country conditions; motion untimely | Court: Held untimely; attack is a changed personal circumstance, not changed country conditions, so no exception applies |
| Whether the IJ/BIA abused discretion in denying reopening | Porras: IJ ignored country conditions evidence (or should have considered reopening) | Gov’t: IJ reasonably exercised broad discretion; petitioner bore heavy burden and submitted no documentary evidence | Court: No abuse of discretion; agency decision rational and supported by record |
| Whether appellate court may consider new country reports submitted on review | Porras: new reports show worsening conditions and support reopening | Gov’t: review limited to administrative record; new materials not considered | Court: Cannot consider evidence outside administrative record; refused to consider new reports |
| Whether evidence showed a material, previously unavailable change between March and July 2011 | Porras: conditions worsened contemporaneously, evidenced by the shooting | Gov’t: no documentary proof of countrywide change in that window | Court: No evidence of material change in country conditions during relevant period; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Yu Yun Zhang v. Holder, 702 F.3d 878 (6th Cir. 2012) (standard for motions to reopen and distinction between personal changes and changed country conditions)
- Bi Feng Liu v. Holder, 560 F.3d 485 (6th Cir. 2009) (requiring material, previously unavailable evidence of changed country conditions to excuse filing deadline)
- Denko v. INS, 351 F.3d 717 (6th Cir. 2003) (reviewing BIA’s affirmance without opinion by reviewing IJ’s decision)
- INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (1992) (motions to reopen are disfavored and agency has broad discretion)
- Lin v. Holder, 565 F.3d 971 (6th Cir. 2009) (review limited to administrative record; court cannot take judicial notice of outside country reports)