Sonia Ramos-Lopez v. Loretta Lynch, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9526

Background

Sonia Ramos-Lopez, a Guatemalan national, filed a motion to reopen long after her 1998 in absentia removal; she argued changed country conditions justified reopening to seek asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
She submitted evidence (2013) alleging increased violence against women (femicide), remilitarization after Otto Perez Molina's election, and a personal risk tied to her brother-in-law’s past cartel involvement.
The BIA and immigration judge denied the motion to reopen as Ramos-Lopez failed to show the evidence was material and unavailable at the 1998 proceedings; the BIA also denied her motion for reconsideration.
Ramos-Lopez challenged the BIA’s failure to consider all evidence and asserted she made a prima facie showing of eligibility for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief; she also claimed a due-process violation.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s denial for abuse of discretion and analyzed whether Ramos-Lopez met the statutory exception to the time limit for motions to reopen based on changed country conditions.
The court also held it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of reconsideration because her petition for review was filed one day late and Rule 26(c)’s three-day service-based enlargement did not apply to the §1252(b)(1) filing deadline.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ramos-Lopez presented material, previously unavailable evidence of changed country conditions to overcome the time bar for reopening	Evidence shows escalation of femicide, remilitarization since Perez Molina, and personal risk from brother-in-law’s cartel ties	Evidence did not meaningfully compare 1998 conditions to 2013; personal circumstances change is not changed country conditions	Denied — evidence was not shown to be material and unavailable; BIA did not abuse discretion
Whether BIA violated due process by failing to consider all submitted evidence	BIA ignored some submitted documents and thus violated due process	No liberty interest in a motion to reopen; no due-process violation	Denied — no due-process violation because no liberty interest in motion to reopen
Whether Ramos-Lopez made a prima facie showing of eligibility for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief	Her evidence established eligibility for relief if reopening granted	Court need not reach merits because reopening denial was not an abuse of discretion	Not reached — merits unnecessary given procedural ruling
Whether the court had jurisdiction to review BIA’s denial of motion for reconsideration given the late filing	Petition was timely under Fed. R. App. P. 26(c)'s 3-day service enlargement	The statutory 30-day filing rule in §1252(b)(1) is triggered by the date of the final order and is jurisdictional; Rule 26(c) does not extend it	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — petition received one day late; Rule 26(c) inapplicable

Key Cases Cited

Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder, 772 F.3d 1019 (5th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for denial of motion to reopen)
Panjwani v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 626 (5th Cir. 2005) (requiring comparison showing changed country conditions are material and were unavailable at prior hearing)
Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547 (5th Cir. 2006) (no liberty interest in motion to reopen; due-process analysis)
Navarro-Miranda v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 672 (5th Cir. 2003) (30-day statutory filing deadline for petitions for review is jurisdictional)
Kane v. Holder, 581 F.3d 231 (5th Cir. 2009) (separate petitions required for each BIA decision on motions to reopen/reconsider)
Zhao v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 405 (7th Cir. 2005) (change in personal circumstances does not constitute changed country conditions)
Nahatchevska v. Ashcroft, 317 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2003) (Rule 26(c) does not enlarge statutory filing period triggered by issuance date)
Lashley v. Ford Motor Co., 518 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1975) (analysis of Rule 26(c) in relation to filing periods)