Rosales-Perez v. Holder
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 817
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Rosales Perez, a Guatemalan teacher, was ordered removed in 2011 after immigration proceedings beginning in 2006.
- He entered the U.S. illegally in 2003 and sought withholding, CAT protection, and voluntary departure.
- He testified to gang violence linked to his teaching and public opposition to gangs.
- The IJ denied relief and granted voluntary departure; the BIA later dismissed the appeal and reinstated voluntary departure.
- Rosales moved to reopen in December 2011 based on new evidence about violence against teachers; the BIA denied reopening in February 2012.
- He petitions for judicial review, arguing the BIA erred in evaluating new evidence and the prima facie case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether new evidence was material to reopening | Rosales contends new evidence fills nexus gap | BIA found new evidence not material and cumulative | No material impact; BIA did not abuse discretion |
| Whether BIA conflated prima facie with underlying relief | Rosales says record viewed with old and new evidence supports prima facie | BIA reviewed entire record; no error | BIA properly applied materiality standard, not misread prima facie requirement |
| Whether the court should issue prosecutorial discretion relief | Rosales seeks discretionary stay/remain | Government discretion not reviewable by court | Court declines to issue; not appropriate to compel discretion review |
Key Cases Cited
- Jutus v. Holder, 723 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard for reopening proceedings)
- Fesseha v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2003) (strong public interest in finality of removal proceedings)
- Haizem Liu v. Holder, 727 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2013) (review of BIA denial of motion to reopen under abuse of discretion)
- Le Bin Zhu v. Holder, 622 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review standard for reopening)
- Smith v. Holder, 627 F.3d 427 (1st Cir. 2010) (look to all record evidence vs. new evidence for prima facie case)
- Ratnasingam v. Holder, 556 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2009) (materiality and threshold requirements for motion to reopen)
- Lopez v. Holder, 723 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2013) (jurisdictional time limits for BIA review; reconsideration limits)
- Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (1995) (mandatory and jurisdictional time limits for review)