Valdez Lopez v. Holder
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14253
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Valdez-Lopez, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. as a visitor in 2001 and overstayed.
- DHS charged removability in 2005; he admitted amended charges and sought asylum and withholding of removal (WOR).
- IJ found him ineligible for asylum (timeliness) and WOR (no protected-ground-based future harm; personal retaliation only).
- BIA affirmed in 2009, agreeing that fear was not persecution on a protected ground and that general lawlessness did not support withholding.
- Valdez-Lopez filed a motion to reopen on May 15, 2012, arguing changed country conditions; motion was untimely but premised on changed conditions.
- BIA denied the motion to reopen on October 11, 2012, concluding evidence did not establish material changed country conditions or a change in risk tied to a particular social group.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA abused its discretion denying the motion to reopen on changed country conditions | Valdez-Lopez argues changed conditions in Mexico render relief more likely. | Valdez-Lopez's evidence does not show material, new conditions; risk remains personal, not grounded in a protected class. | No abuse of discretion; evidence insufficient to show material changed conditions. |
| Whether evidence of increased lawlessness and daughter's incident constitutes material change | Changed conditions evidence supports reopening on broader risk and possible particular social group grounds. | Incidents do not indicate Martinez-Trejo now targets Valdez-Lopez by protected ground or that conditions differ materially. | Not a material change; evidence fails to alter the prior assessment of risk. |
| Whether the court may review sua sponte reopening decisions or timeliness issues | Requests sua sponte reopening should be reconsidered given changed circumstances. | Court has no jurisdiction to review the BIA's sua sponte decision; timeliness remains fatal. | BIA's sua sponte denial is not reviewable; timeliness issues affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fesseha v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2003) (strong public interest in promptly closing litigation; broad BIA discretion in motions to reopen)
- Lemus v. Gonzales, 489 F.3d 399 (1st Cir. 2007) (broad latitude to the BIA in deciding motions to reopen)
- Tawadrous v. Holder, 565 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2009) (changed conditions must be material to relief; not mere continuation)
- Raza v. Gonzalez, 484 F.3d 125 (1st Cir. 2007) (change in conditions must be material and unavailable earlier)
- Smith v. Holder, 627 F.3d 427 (1st Cir. 2010) (standard for material change in country conditions)
- Tandayu v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 97 (1st Cir. 2008) (changed conditions standard applicable to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii))
- Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (1995) (mandatory, jurisdictional time limits for review of removal orders)
- Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33 (1990) (mandates timing requirements for review; jurisdictional)
- Carter v. INS, 90 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 1996) (abuse of discretion standard in immigration review)
- Smith v. Holder, 627 F.3d 427 (1st Cir. 2010) (material change analysis in country conditions)