457 F. App'x 446
5th Cir.2012Background
- Liu, a Chinese native and citizen, petitions for review of the BIA's denial of his second motion to reopen based on 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C) time and numerical limits.
- Liu argues the new evidence shows a material change in country conditions that makes the motion exempt from those limits.
- The government contends the evidence does not show a material change in China’s country conditions since the original removal hearing.
- The court reviews the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen under a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard.
- There is a general 90-day filing deadline for motions to reopen, with a one-motion limit, and an exception for changed country conditions if material and newly available.
- The BIA compared the evidence Liu submitted with the conditions at the time of his merits hearing and concluded there was no material change.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Liu showed a material country-condition change. | Liu contends the new evidence proves a material change. | Liu failed to show a material change since the merits hearing. | No material change; motion not exempt from limits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Panjwani v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 626 (5th Cir. 2005) (frames material-change standard for changed-country-conditions motions)
- In re S-Y-G, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247 (BIA 2007) (how to assess material change by comparing evidence with prior record)
- Manzano-Garcia v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 462 (5th Cir. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard for BIA denial of motion to reopen)
- Pritchett v. INS, 993 F.2d 80 (5th Cir. 1993) (abuse-of-discretion framework context)