Sanchez-Romero v. Sessions, 865 F.3d 43

Background

Juan Manuel Sánchez-Romero, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. without admission in 2003 and was served a Notice to Appear in Puerto Rico in 2009 charging illegal presence and false representation.
Sánchez applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, asserting fear of Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) and abusive Mexican army personnel after abandoning military service; he claimed family members were killed and he feared reprisal and torture.
An immigration judge denied relief in 2011; the BIA affirmed in 2013. Sánchez did not act immediately and filed an untimely motion to reopen in August 2016 (over three years later).
Sánchez's motion to reopen alleged changed country conditions in Mexico since 2011: increased DTO power, kidnappings, murders, disappearances, and government acquiescence to DTO violence; he argued these changes excused the untimeliness.
The BIA denied the motion, finding Sánchez failed to show changed conditions (the evidence showed persistent, not intensified, violence) and therefore did not need to reach whether he established a prima facie claim for asylum, withholding, or CAT relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BIA abused discretion in denying untimely motion to reopen based on changed country conditions	Sánchez: country conditions in Mexico worsened (DTOs grew more powerful, kidnappings/disappearances increased) since 2011, excusing the 90-day rule	Gov't: evidence shows ongoing grave conditions but not material deterioration since the merits hearing; motion remains untimely	Court: No abuse of discretion — evidence showed continued, not intensified, conditions; BIA reasonably denied reopening
Whether Sánchez demonstrated changed conditions warranting equitable tolling of 90-day filing rule	Sánchez: presented reports/statistics of increased kidnappings, disappearances, DTO influence post-2011	Gov't: cited pre-2011 evidence of similar violence and fragmentation of DTOs; post-2011 materials did not show material change	Held: Sánchez failed the required "convincing demonstration" of changed conditions
Whether Sánchez made out prima facie eligibility for asylum/withholding based on political opinion (opposition to DTOs)	Sánchez: opposition to DTOs and victimization of relatives shows political opinion and risk on return	Gov't: merits insufficient and BIA did not err in finding no basis to reopen	Held: Court did not reach merits because denial on changed-conditions ground was dispositive; no abuse shown
Whether BIA arbitrarily limited review of CAT claim	Sánchez: BIA focused only on part of CAT claim and acted arbitrarily	Gov't: BIA addressed relevant CAT aspects but need not decide after denial on changed conditions	Held: Court declined to reach this; denial of changed-conditions ground was dispositive and not an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Cardona v. Sessions, 848 F.3d 519 (1st Cir. 2017) (standard: BIA denial of motion to reopen reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Bbale v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 63 (1st Cir. 2016) (BIA decision upheld unless arbitrary, capricious, or irrational)
Xiao He Chen v. Lynch, 825 F.3d 83 (1st Cir. 2016) (changed-conditions exception to 90-day rule)
Larngar v. Holder, 562 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2009) (requirements for reopening: changed evidence and prima facie eligibility)
Xin Qiang Liu v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2015) (compare country-condition evidence at merits hearing with that submitted with motion)
Haizem Liu v. Holder, 727 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2013) (BIA may base denial on changed-conditions finding without reaching merits)
Tandayu v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 97 (1st Cir. 2008) (burden: convincing demonstration of changed conditions)
Raza v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 125 (1st Cir. 2007) (same standard for changed conditions)
Mejía-Ramaja v. Lynch, 806 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2015) (continued grave conditions do not necessarily show intensification)
Yang Zhao-Cheng v. Holder, 721 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2013) (if no changed conditions shown, BIA need not evaluate prima facie eligibility)