Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03103/USCOURTS-ca8-15-03103-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent
Eluid Harodi Villatoro-Ochoa
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-3103

___________________________

Eluid Harodi Villatoro-Ochoa

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: September 20, 2016

 Filed: January 4, 2017

____________

Before COLLOTON, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

After unsuccessfully seeking withholding of removal, Eluid Harodi VillatoroOchoa, a native and citizen of Guatemala, filed an untimely motion to reopen his

removal proceedings. To excuse the untimeliness of his motion, Villatoro-Ochoa

asserted changed country conditions in Guatemala. The BIA concluded that

Villatoro-Ochoa failed to establish changed country conditions and denied his motion

to reopen. We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 15-3103 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2017 Entry ID: 4486135 
I. Background

Villatoro-Ochoa was a pastor with an evangelical Christian church in

Guatemala. He contendsthat gangs in the area threatened, harassed, and extorted him

because the gangs did not want him to influence gang members to leave the gang or

deter new members from joining. Due to these threats, Villatoro-Ochoa left

Guatemala and entered the United States without inspection in March 1998.

Villatoro-Ochoa was issued a Notice to Appear on October 31, 2003. He

admitted the Notice’s factual allegations and conceded removability. He filed an

application for withholding of removal on April 2, 2007, based on threats and gang

violence in Guatemala. The IJ denied the application for withholding of removal on

October 15, 2009, finding that Villatoro-Ochoa was not credible and that, even if he

were credible, he did not meet the burden for withholding of removal. VillatoroOchoa appealed to the BIA, and the BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of relief on February

14, 2012. 

On October 19, 2012, Villatoro-Ochoa filed a motion to reopen his removal

proceedings, well past the 90-day filing deadline in 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). The

IJ dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Villatoro-Ochoa appealed to the BIA

and filed a second, separate motion to reopen with the BIA on January 18, 2013. On

August 21, 2015, the BIA dismissed the appeal and denied Villatoro-Ochoa’s second

motion to reopen. The BIA concluded that because Villatoro-Ochoa’s motion to

reopen was untimely, he was required to show changed country conditions after the

IJ’s October 15, 2009 decision. The BIA found that he failed to establish changed

country conditions. Villatoro-Ochoa timely appealed.

-2-

Appellate Case: 15-3103 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2017 Entry ID: 4486135 
II. Discussion

“We review ‘theBIA’s denial of the motion to reopen for abuse of discretion.’” 

Martinez v. Lynch, 785 F.3d 1262, 1264 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Sidikhouya v.

Gonzales, 407 F.3d 950, 951 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam)). The BIA has broad

discretion on motions to reopen, and “[t]hese motions are ‘disfavored because they

undermine the government’s legitimate interest in finality, which is heightened in

removal proceedings where, as a general matter, every delay works to the advantage

of the deportable alien who wishes merely to remain in the United States.’” Id. at

1264–65 (quoting Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872, 882 (8th Cir. 2008)). The BIA

abuses its discretion if it does not give a rational explanation for its decision or

ignores or distorts evidence. Id. at 1265.

On February 14, 2012, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s underlying denial of relief and

ordered Villatoro-Ochoa removed to Guatemala. He moved to reopen his removal

proceedings on January 18, 2013. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), a motion to 1

reopen must be filed within 90 days of the removal order. Villatoro-Ochoa’s motion

to reopen was filed 11 months after the removal order and, thus, was untimely. The

statute provides an exception to the 90-day filing deadline if an applicant seeks to

apply for asylum or withholding of removal and he shows that his motion “is based

on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to

which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available

and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8

U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). 

Villatoro-Ochoa does not challenge the BIA’s dismissal of his appealfromthe

1

IJ’s denial of his October 19, 2012 motion to reopen. As such, that part of the BIA’s

decision is not at issue in this case.

-3-

Appellate Case: 15-3103 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/04/2017 Entry ID: 4486135 
Where a motion to reopen in order to file a new application for relief is filed,

the motion must include the new application and supporting documents. 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(1). If the BIA determines that the applicant has not demonstrated

changed country conditions based on previously unavailable evidence or that the

applicant failed to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought, the BIA may

deny the motion to reopen. Chen v. Holder, 751 F.3d 876, 878 (8th Cir. 2014).

We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying VillatoroOchoa’s motion to reopen. In his motion, Villatoro-Ochoa claimed that there was

increased violence in Guatemala. He also claimed gangs killed several members of

his family due to their refusal to sell drugs. Villatoro-Ochoa argued that he too would

be persecuted based on his membership in his family. 

In support of his motion, Villatoro-Ochoa submitted his new application for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture. He alleged that two family members were “killed over drugs” in 2004 and

2005 and that two family members were “killed over drugs” in 2010 and 2011.

Villatoro-Ochoa also submitted affidavitsfromhis sister and sister-in-law stating that

relatives were threatened and killed by gangs for refusing to sell drugs. Finally,

Villatoro-Ochoa submitted documents describing conditionsin Guatemala, including

reports of gang violence. 

The BIA concluded:

The respondent’s sister-in-law’s affidavit indicatesthat the

threat was made in 2004. The deaths of two members of

the respondent’s wife’s family in 2010 and 2011, although

tragic, are not a material change in conditions. We have

considered all of the documents that the respondent

submitted with his motion and conclude that they are not

-4-

Appellate Case: 15-3103 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/04/2017 Entry ID: 4486135 
sufficient to establish a material change in country

conditions in Guatemala that would warrant reopening. 

We agree with the BIA’s assessment. During his 2009 hearing, VillatoroOchoa testified that gang violence was common in Guatemala and that he had been

threatened by gangs. While Villatoro-Ochoa submitted documentsshowing that gang

violence continued in Guatemala, those documents do not demonstrate materially

changed conditions. Further, while four of Villatoro-Ochoa’s relatives were killed

by gangs, two of those deaths happened before the 2009 hearing. Thus, evidence of

those deaths was available at the time of that hearing. Additionally, while the deaths

oftwo otherrelatives occurred after Villatoro-Ochoa’s 2009 hearing,Villatoro-Ochoa

failed to demonstrate that those deaths were the result of changed country conditions. 

Rather, as shown by the affidavits Villatoro-Ochoa submitted, the deaths of his

relatives in 2010 and 2011 were the result of the same gang violence cited by

Villatoro-Ochoa in 2009. 

This Court considered a similar claim of changed circumstances in Martinez

v. Lynch, 785 F.3d 1262 (8th Cir. 2015). In that case, the applicant argued that the

death of a friend after an earlier hearing established changed country conditions. Id.

at 1265. The Court explained, “Unfortunately, the type of violence suffered by Perez

was occurring at the time of Martinez’s October 2012 hearing; and Martinez offered

nothing to show that this particular death somehow reflected a change in country

conditions in Guatemala.” Id. The Court concluded that the applicant did not meet

the exception for his untimely motion to reopen because he did not demonstrate that

the death of his friend was evidence of changed conditions. Id. 

Because Villatoro-Ochoa did not demonstrate that his relatives’ deathsin 2010

and 2011 reflected changed country conditions, it was not an abuse of discretion for

the BIA to deny Villatoro-Ochoa’s motion to reopen. The BIA considered all the

-5-

Appellate Case: 15-3103 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/04/2017 Entry ID: 4486135 
record evidence in denying the motion and gave a rational explanation for its

2

decision.

3

 III. Conclusion

For the reasons above, we affirm the BIA’s decision on Villatoro-Ochoa’s

motion to reopen. 

______________________________

Villatoro-Ochoa argues that the BIA violated his right to Due Process because 2

it failed to consider all the evidence he submitted in support of his motion to reopen. 

This argument is unsupported by the record. See Hanan v. Mukasey, 519 F.3d 760,

764 (8th Cir. 2008).

The BIA also found that Villatoro-Ochoa did not establish prima facie

3

eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the CAT. 

Villatoro-Ochoa challenges this finding on appeal. Because the above analysis

provides an alternative basis to deny Villatoro-Ochoa’s petition, we need not address

this issue. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 15-3103 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/04/2017 Entry ID: 4486135