Yonis Ali v. William P. Barr, 924 F.3d 983

Background

Yonis Ahmed Ali, a Somali national, was ordered removable in 2007; his 2010 applications for asylum, withholding, and CAT were denied as not credible, and the denial was affirmed on appeal in 2012.
More than five years after that denial, Ali moved the BIA to reopen based on changed country conditions: the rise and tactical shift of Al-Shabaab toward targeting Westernized, moderate Somalis like him.
The BIA denied the untimely motion because Ali could have raised Al-Shabaab-related fears at his 2010 hearing (Al-Shabaab existed and was a designated terrorist organization by 2008), and the State Department reports available then discussed violence against moderate Muslims.
Ali petitioned for review, arguing the BIA abused its discretion by failing to adequately address his evidence and that the statutory requirement of showing changed country conditions (rather than personal changes) violates due process and equal protection.
The court first addressed jurisdiction arguments invoking Pereira v. Sessions (challenge to notice to appear), rejected the claim that Pereira invalidates immigration-court jurisdiction, and held it had jurisdiction to review the petition.
On the merits, the Eighth Circuit held the BIA did not abuse its discretion: it gave reasoned bases for denial and did not ignore material evidence; constitutional challenges were rejected as foreclosed by precedent.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Ali)	Defendant's Argument (BIA/Government)	Held
Whether Pereira invalidates IJ/BIA jurisdiction and renders proceedings void	Pereira means a NTA lacking time/place is invalid and deprives the court of jurisdiction over removal proceedings	Jurisdiction vests under regulations when charging document is filed; Pereira did not address IJ jurisdiction; regulations permit initial hearing info "where practicable"	Court held Pereira does not negate IJ/BIA jurisdiction and declined to invalidate proceedings
Whether BIA abused its discretion by failing to give a reasoned decision denying motion to reopen	BIA ignored/failed to address extensive evidence of Al-Shabaab's changed tactics and risk to Ali	BIA provided cogent reasons that Ali could have raised the Al-Shabaab claim in 2010 and relied on contemporaneous country reports	Court held no abuse of discretion; BIA "heard and thought" and need not address every item
Whether "changed circumstances" for late motions to reopen may include changes in personal circumstances (due process)	Statute should allow personal changes to satisfy reopening standard; BIA's interpretation denies due process	Goverment/BIA interprets statute to require country conditions changes; precedent supports that focus	Court rejected Ali's due-process challenge, relying on circuit precedent upholding BIA's interpretation
Whether treating aliens with final removal orders differently (requiring country changes) violates equal protection	BIA's rule discriminates against similarly situated aliens by excluding personal changes	Government: rational basis (finality) for distinguishing those subject to final orders; precedent supports difference	Court held equal protection claim fails; rational-basis justification and controlling precedent apply

Key Cases Cited

Ali v. Holder, 686 F.3d 534 (8th Cir. 2012) (prior appeal affirming IJ credibility finding)
Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018) (stop-time rule and validity of notice to appear lacking time/place)
Villatoro-Ochoa v. Lynch, 844 F.3d 993 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard: BIA abuses discretion when it ignores or distorts evidence)
Averianova v. Holder, 592 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2010) (BIA must "hear and think" but need not address every argument; changed-circumstances interpretation)
Zeah v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 699 (8th Cir. 2016) (upholding BIA denial of untimely reopening despite terrorist-group developments)
Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2019) (regulatory jurisdiction and interpretation post-Pereira)