Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying a motion to reopen removal proceedings was considered. The petitioner, subject to a final removal order, sought to reopen the proceedings to apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The applicable legal framework under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(A)(C)(i) and 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(2) limits aliens to filing only one motion to reopen within 90 days of the final removal order. The petitioner argued for an exemption based on changed country conditions in Mexico, as allowed under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iii). However, he failed to provide sufficient evidence of such changes, leading the BIA to deny his motion. The court reviewed this denial for abuse of discretion and found none, thus upholding the BIA's decision. The respondent's motion for summary disposition was granted due to the lack of substantial questions presented in the petition, rendering all other motions moot. The temporary stay of removal remains in effect until the court issues its mandate. Ultimately, the petition for review was denied, with the court's disposition not designated for publication or precedent, per 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Effect of Denial on Temporary Stay of Removalsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A temporary stay of removal remains in effect until the court issues its mandate.
Reasoning: All other motions are deemed moot, and a temporary stay of removal remains in effect until the mandate is issued.
Exception to Motion to Reopen Limitations for CAT Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner claimed an exemption from the 90-day filing limit to seek relief under the CAT but failed to show materially changed country conditions.
Reasoning: The petitioner contends he is exempt from these limitations to seek relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), citing 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iii). However, he did not provide evidence of materially changed country conditions in Mexico relevant to his situation, as required by 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
Limitations on Filing a Motion to Reopensubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: An alien is allowed only one motion to reopen, which must be filed within 90 days of the final removal order.
Reasoning: An alien can file only one motion to reopen within 90 days of a final removal order, as stipulated by 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(A)(C)(i) and 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(2).
Review of BIA's Denial of Motion to Reopensubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The BIA's decision to deny a motion to reopen is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Reasoning: The BIA's decision is subject to review for abuse of discretion, per Perez v. Mulcasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008).
Summary Disposition of Petitions with Insubstantial Questionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court granted the respondent's motion for summary disposition due to the insubstantial nature of the petitioner's claims.
Reasoning: The respondent's motion for summary disposition is granted due to the insubstantial nature of the petition's questions, as stated in United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir. 1982).