Ramiro Aguilar-Rivera v. Attorney General United States
20-2329
3rd Cir.Jul 2, 2021Background
- Ramiro Aguilar-Rivera, a Mexican national, initially entered the U.S. in 1996, was placed in removal proceedings in 1997, granted voluntary departure, and returned to Mexico.
- He reentered without inspection in February 2010, received an expedited removal order, and was returned to Mexico the same month.
- In July 2019 he filed a motion to reopen to apply for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, alleging increased cartel violence and that he and family members were targeted: he alleged a 2011 kidnapping/torture, a 2013 kidnapping of his daughter, and a 2013 beating of his son.
- Submitted evidence included affidavits from family members, a missing-person police report, a March 2012 medical report describing only chronic changes (no acute fracture/dislocation), an undated photo of treatment, and country-condition articles.
- The IJ denied the motion (Aug. 27, 2019) for insufficient corroboration and failure to show changed circumstances making relief likely; the BIA dismissed the appeal (June 2, 2020) concluding petitioner failed to show prima facie eligibility for asylum or CAT relief. Petitioner filed this petition for review.
Issues
| Issue | Aguilar-Rivera's Argument | DHS/BIA's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA applied a higher-than-appropriate burden / improperly required proof beyond prima facie at motion-to-reopen stage | BIA/ IJ effectively required him to "prove" new facts and demanded corroboration beyond the prima facie standard | BIA reasonably applied the prima facie standard and gave appropriate weight to the evidence; petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of relief | No abuse of discretion; even if wording was unclear on "corroboration," evidence was insufficient to meet prima facie standard, so denial stands |
| Whether petitioner was entitled to advance notice that corroboration would be required | Petitioner asserts he was not given advance notice to produce corroborating evidence | DHS argues issue was not raised before the BIA, so it is unexhausted | Court lacks jurisdiction to review because petitioner did not raise the notice claim to the BIA; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether petitioner established prima facie eligibility for asylum and CAT relief (based on personal harm and country conditions) | He alleges kidnapping, torture, family kidnapping/beating, and worsening cartel conditions supporting fear of persecution/torture | Evidence is inconsistent, lacks affidavits from children, medical record undermines claimed acute injuries, country-condition reports show general danger not particularized targeting | Substantial-evidence supports BIA: petitioner failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on asylum or CAT claims; petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 2002) (standard for reviewing BIA denial of motions to reopen; abuse-of-discretion and prima facie inquiry)
- Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556 (3d Cir. 2004) (motion-to-reopen requires objective evidence showing a reasonable likelihood of establishing eligibility)
- Shardar v. Attorney General, 503 F.3d 308 (3d Cir. 2007) (distinguishes changed-circumstances analysis and cautions against rejecting veracity rather than limiting weight)
- INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (1992) (motions to reopen are disfavored; Attorney General has broad discretion)
- Abdille v. Ashcroft, 242 F.3d 477 (3d Cir. 2001) (ordinary criminal activity does not necessarily constitute persecution qualifying for asylum)
- Yan Lan Wu v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 418 (3d Cir. 2005) (exhaustion requirement for BIA review; petitioner must put the Board on notice of issues for appellate review)