2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-22-2009 

# Thom a s v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-3907

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Thom as v . Atty Ge n U SA" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2001. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/2001T h e H o n o rab le Jo h n R . P ad o v a, S en ior U n it ed S tat es D istri ct Ju d g e f o r th e E astern * D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT
N o. 07- 3907
DOUGL AS T HOMAS

P et i t i oner , v. ATTO RN EY G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES R es pondent
.

Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a Fi nal O r derof T h e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A Fi l e N o. A 26- 582- 649)
Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary6, 2009 B E FO R E : FU E N T E S and FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges , and

PA D O V A , Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge. * ( Fi l ed: J anuary22, 2009)
OPI NI ON O F THE COURT2

PA D O V A , Seni orD i s t r i ctJ udge. P e tit io n e r, D o u g las T h o m a s (“ T h o m a s” ), a c iti z e n a n d n a tiv e o f H a iti w h o is depor t abl e pur s uant t o 8 U . S. C
. § 1251( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) beca us e of a drug cr i m e convi ct i on, s eeks
r evi ew of the dec i s i on of t he B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) di s m i s s i ng hi s m ot i on t o r eopen r em o v al pr ocee di ngs pur s uantt o 8 C
. F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i )
. For t he fol l ow i ng
re a s o n s , th e P e titio n w ill b e d e n ie d
. I . B eca us e w e w r i t e pr i m ar i l y for t he par t i es , w ho ar e fami l i arw i t h t hi s cas e, w e nee d notr ei t er at e the fa ctua l o r p roc edur al backgr ound of t hi s appea l exce pti ns ofaras m aybe hel pful t o ourdi s cus s i on. I n a M ay2001 hear i ng befor e the i m m i gr at i on j udge ( “I J ”) on an appl i cati on for defe r r al of re m oval under t he U
. N . C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e ( “C A T ”) , T hom as cl ai m ed t hat he m ore l i kely t han no t w ou l d b e t ortured i f repat ri at ed to H ai t i
. In grant i ng T ho m as’ appl i cat i on fo r d ef

err al of r emoval , t he I J found thatt es t i m onyT hom as pr ovi ded the G overnm entt o s uppor tt he pr os ecut i on of s ever al H ai t i an drug deal er s i n t he U ni t ed St at es
w o u ld p u t h im a t u n iq u e risk o f h a rm
— risin g to th e lev e l o f to rtu re
— if re p a triate d to H a iti
. T h e IJ a lso f

o u n d p e rsu a siv e T h o m a s’ d o c u m e n tar ye v id e n c e sh o w in g th e d e p lo ra b le condi t i ons i n H ai t i an prison s. In N ovember 2003, t he B I A r ever s ed the I J ’ s deci s i on and
or der ed thatT hom as be deport ed. T he B I A r ej ec ted T h o m as’ t es t i m onyt hathe w oul d be i ndi vi dual l y t ar get ed by t hos e connec t ed t o t he drug deal er s agai ns tw hom he had t es t i fi edT he B I A pr ocee ded w i t h T hom as ’ cl ai m s “w i t houtdet er m i ni ng w hethert he exc ept i on 1 to th e tim e lim its o n m o tio n s to re o p e n c o d if ied a t 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )(3 )(ii) e x ten d s to appl i cat i ons forpr ot ect i on undert he C onvent i on A gai ns tT or tur e . . . . ” A pp. at2. 3 a n d d e ter m in e d th a t p riso n c o n d iti o n s in H a iti d id n o t a lo n e e sta b lish th e re q u isite p ro b a b ili ty
o f t o rtu re. T h e B IA reli ed u p o n M att er of J-E -, 2 3 I. & N . D ec . 2 9 1 (B IA 2 0 0 2 ), to su p p o rt i t s det er m i nat i on. In D ec em b er 2 0 0 6 , w e de n ied T h o m as’ fir st p eti ti o n fo r rev iew , fin d ing that the B IA had appl i ed the pr oper s peci fi c i nt entr equi r ement t o T hom as ’ C A T cl ai m . See Thom as v. A t t’ y G en. , 210 F. A pp’ x. 195, 202 ( 3d C i r . 2006)
. W e al s o deni ed Thom as ’ r eques tfor
rem and for add i t i on al fact fi nd i ng becau se w e deter m i ned w e l acked j uri sdi ct i on t o d o so
u n d er 8 U . S
. C
. § 1 2 5 2 (a)(1) a n d § 1 2 5 2 (b)(a)(4 )(A ). Id. at 20 3
. W e d id su g g est, h o w ev er, t hat T hom as coul d m ove t o r eopen r emoval pr ocee di ngs on t he bas i s of changed c o u n tr y condi t i ons , pur s uantt o 8 C
. F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i ) , des pi t e the fac t t hat he s oughtdefe r r al of
rem o v al, rathe r th an w ith h o lding o f re m o v al. Id. (cit ing 8 C
. F . R . § 2 0 8
. 1 7 (a)). II. I n M ar ch 2007, T hom as fi l ed a mot i on t o r eopen ba s ed on both a cha nge i n t he l egal
s t andar d appl i ed t o C A T cl ai m s and changed condi t i ons i n H ai t i
. T he B I A deni ed the mot i on on A ugus t31, 2007. A tt he out s etof i t s anal y s i s , t he B I A s t at ed itw oul d “fi r s tcons i der
w hethert he r es pond en t ha [d] es t abl i s hed cha nged ci r cumst ance s i n H ai t i t hatw arr ant
r eopeni ng. ” A pp. at2. T he B I A t hen r ej ect ed Thom as ’ cl ai m t hat “ther e ha[ d] been a

1 change i n t he an alys is of cl aim s for pr ot ect i on under t he C onvent i on A gai ns t T or tur e. ” I d.4

( ci t i ng L avi r a v. A t t ’ y G en. , 478 F. 3d 158, 168 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( emphasi s added) , overrul ed byPi err e v. A t t ’ yG en. , 528 F. 3d 180 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( en banc) )
. T he B I A al s o di s agr eed that “the pr offe r ed evi dence es t abl i s he[d] t hatcondi t i ons h a[ d] det er i or at ed s i nce M ar ch 22, 20 02 , w hen [t he B IA ] i ssued [i t s] decis i on i n M at t er of J- E -, ” despit e fi nd i ng t hat Th om as’
m ot i on w as “s uppor t ed by ext ens i ve evi dence r egar di ng countr y condi t i ons i n H ai t i
. ” I d. at 3. R ather , t he B I A found Thom as ’ document s “[di d] nots how t hatcondi t i ons i n H ai t i ha[d]
w or s ened si nce t he t i m e of the r es pondent ’ s r emoval hear i ng. ” I d. M or eover , t he B I A found t hat, att he ti m e of T ho m as’ M ay20 01 rem ov al heari ng , t he IJ “w as on noti ce . . . of these condi t i ons i n H ai t i bas ed on otherevi dence of r ecor d. ” I d. T he B I A ul t i m at el ydeni ed T hom as ’ m ot i on and concl uded t hat he “ha[d] fai l ed t o s how a r eas onabl e l i kel i hood t hathe
can e s t abl i s h t hathe [w oul d] m or e l i kel y t han not . . . be t or tur ed. ” I d. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. III . T he B I A has j ur i s di ct i on overa m ot i on t o r eopen pur s uantt o 8 C
. F. R . § 1003. 1( b) and § 1003. 2( c)
. W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew fi nal or der s of r emoval pur s uantt o § 242 of t he I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on A ct ( “I N A ”) , codi fi ed at 8 U . S. C
. § 1252( a) and as amended b ythe R E A L ID A ct of

2 0 0 5 , P u b
. L . N o . 1 0 9 -13 , D iv. B
. , 1 1 9 S tat . 2 3 1 (20 0 5 ) (“R E A L ID A c t” ). B eca us e Thom as w as convi ct ed i n 1991 of cons pi r acyt o pos s es s coca i ne w i t h i nt ent t o d i s t r i b u t e , a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y , h e i s d e p o r t a b l e u n d e r t h e I NA. S e e g e n e r a l l y8 U. S
. C. § 1227( a) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) , 1227( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) ; i d. § 1101( a) ( 43) ( B )
. W e gene r al l yl ack j ur i s di ct i on5

“t o r evi ew anyfi nal or derof r emoval agai ns t an al i en w ho i s r emovabl e byr eas on of havi ng
co m m itted a crim inal o ff en se c o v ere d in” 8 U . S
. C
. § 1 2 2 7 (a)(2)(A )(i ii ) o r § 1 2 2 7 (a)(2)(B ). 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( C ). N o tw ith sta n d in g th e ju r is d ictio n -strip p in g p ro v isio n o f § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(C ), w e re tain j ur i s di ct i on under§ 106 of t he R E A L I D A ctt o r evi ew “cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of law raised u p o n a pet i t i on forr evi ew . . . . ” 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D )
. B eca us e our j ur i s di ct i on under § 1252( a) ( 2) r emai ns s t r i ct l yl i m i t ed t o “cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orques t i ons of l aw , ” how ever , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew anyfac tual or di s cr et i onarydet er m i nat i ons
m ade byt he B I A
. See A l aka v. A t t ’ yG en. , 456 F. 3d 88, 102 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( “‘ [D ] es pi t e the change s of the R E A L I D A ct , fac tual ordi s cr et i onarydet er m i nat i ons cont i nue t o fal l out s i de [o u r] j u ri sd ict ion
. ’” (q u o ti n g S u k w an p u tr a v . G o n za les, 4 3 4 F . 3 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 4 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 )))
. O ur r evi ew under 8 U . S. C
. § 1252( a) ( 2) i s extr emel ynarr ow i n s cope. W e r evi ew t he B I A ’ s deni al of a m ot i on t o r eopen for abus e of di s cr et i on, and w i l l di s turb i t “onl yi f i tw as arb itrary , irrati o n al, o r co n tr aryto law
. ” R ran ci v. A tt ’yG en . , 5 4 0 F . 3 d 1 6 5 , 1 7 1 (3d C ir
. 2008) ( quot i ng Fi l

j a v. G onzal es , 447 F. 3d 241, 251 ( 3d C i r . 2006) )
. I n appl y i ng t hat
s t andar d , “ [ w] e r e v i e w t h e BI A’ s l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s d e n o v o , b u twi l l a f f o r d Che vr on d e f e re nce to t he B IA ’s reas on able i nterpret at i on s of t he st atutes w hich i ti s charged w i th ad m inist ering
. ” K am ara v . A tt ’y G en . , 4 2 0 F . 3 d 2 0 2 , 2 1 1 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). Un l i k e wi t h p e t i t i o n s f

o rr e v i e w b r o u g h tu n d e r 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 1 ) , h o we v e r , we do not exami ne for s ubs t ant i al evi dence fac tual det er m i nat i ons on pet i t i ons br oughtpur s uant6

t o § 12 52( a) ( 2)
. See Pi err e, 528 F. 3d at184 ( “U ndert he R E A L I D A ct , fac tual or d iscreti o n a ryd eterm ination s are o u tsi d e o f o u r sco p e o f re v iew
. ” (c it ati o n o m itted)); Sukw anputr a, 434 F. 3d at634 ( s ame)
. N evert hel es s , b eca us e the R E A L I D A ctgi ves us j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i der“ques t i ons of l aw , ” our r evi ew encompas s es t he “appl i cat i on of l aw to u n d isp u ted f

a c ts o r a d ju d ica ted f

a c ts, ra ise d in th e in iti a l p e tit io n f o r . . . relie f.” M u d ric
v. A t t ’ yG en. , 469 F. 3d 94, 97 ( 3d C i r . 2006) ( emphasi s added) ( ci t i ng K amar a, 420 F. 3d at 211) ; s ee a l s o Fr ancoi s v. G onzal es , 448 F. 3d 645, 648 ( 3d C i r . 2006)
. C f. B akhtri g er v. E l w ood, 360 F.3d 4 1 4 , 425 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( “[A ] l t hough r evi ew as a mat t erof l aw
en c o mpa s s e s d e c i d i n g whe t h e rl e g a l p r i n c i p l e s h a v e b e e n p r o p e r l ya p p l i e d t o u n d i s p ut ed fac t s , i tdoes notencompas s deci di ng t he fa ctu al is s ues t hemsel ves . ” ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons
o m itted)). I V. T h o m a s a rg u e s th a t th e B IA a b u se d its d isc re tio n in tw o w a y s w h e n it d e n ied h is
m ot i on t o r eopen: fi r s t , i t appl i ed t he w r ong “s peci fi c i nt ent ” s t andar d to claim s for p ro tec tio n u n d e r th e C A T ; se c o n d , itim p ro p e rlyf o u n d h e f

a iled to m a k e o u t a p rim a f a c ie
c a se th a t h e w a s e lig ib le f o r C A T p ro tec tio n . T h e G o v e rn m e n t c o n c e d e s th a t th e f o rm e r is a quest i on of l aw w hi ch w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew . H ow ever , t he G overnm entar gues t hatw e l ack j ur i s di ct i on overt he l at t er ques t i on beca us e “w hether t he docum ent aryevi dence T h o m a s p ro f

f e re d e s ta b lis h e s p ri m a f a c ie e lig ib ility
. . . is p u re ly a f a c tu a l d e te rm in a tio n . .

. r equi r [i ng] w ei ghi ng and eva l uat i on of the evi dence
. . . [w hi ch i s ] r evi ew ed undert he7

s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d. ” See Sai nt ha v. M ukas ey , 516 F. 3d 243, 249 ( 4t h C i r . 2008) ( “[W ] e conc l ude that B I A det er m i nat i ons t hatw e w oul d or di nar i l yr evi ew undert he
s ubs t ant i al evi dence s t andar d ar e neces s ar i l yfac tual i n natur e, and ther efor e bey ond our juri sd ict ion to rev iew w h e n the p eti ti o n er h as b ee n co n v ict ed o f a n ag g rav ated fe lon y . ”); C ont eh v. G on zal es , 461 F. 3d 45, 63 ( 1s tC i r . 2006) ( “Thi s pr os cr i pt i on ext ends t o r evi ew of the B I A ’ s fac tual fi ndi ngs as t o cr edi bi l i t y , evi dent i aryw eigh t, an d s at i s fac t i on of a
co rrectl yfra m ed b u rde n o f p roo f.”); cf. H am id v
. G o n za le s , 4 1 7 F . 3 d 6 4 2 , 6 4 7 (7th C ir
. 2005) ( fi ndi ng no j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew “w hethert he I J c o r r ect l ycons i der ed, i nt erpr et ed, and
w ei ghed the evi dence pr es ent ed— t hati s t o s ay , w h ethert he I J ’ s concl us i on w as bas ed on
su b sta n tial e v id e n c e ” ). T h o m a s c o n ten d s th a t w e d o h a v e ju risd ictio n o v e r th e latte r c laim beca us e he s eeks r evi ew of the B I A ’ s l egal d eterm inat i on, i
. e. , pr i m a fa ci e el i gi bi l i t yfor pr ot ect i on undert he C A T . T hom as al l eges t hat t hi s det er m i nat i on w as i m pr operbeca us e the B I A m i s appl i ed the l egal s t andar d governi ng m ot i ons t o r eopen. W e have j ur i s di ct i on overboth o f T h om as ’ cl ai m s . W hethert he B I A appl i ed the p r o p e r“ s p e c i f

i c i n t e n t ” s t a n d a r d p l a i n l yi s a q u e s t i o n o f l a w. M o reo v er, w hetheran al i en i s pr i m a fa ci e eli g ible forC A T r el i ef i s a l egal det er m i nat i on beca us e i ti nvol ves t he appl i cat i on of a l egal pr i nci pal t o a s et of fac t s . See Sevoi an v. A s hcr oft , 290 F. 3d 166, 174- 75 (3d C i r. 20 02 ) ( “A n ap pli cant for r el i ef on t he m eri t s und er the C o n v enti on A gainst T o rtu re b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f e sta b lish in g ‘th a t it is m o re lik e ly th a n n o t th a t h e o r sh e w o u ld be tor tured i f rem ov ed to t he p roposed cou ntryof r e m ov al
. ’ .
. . [T ]he pri m a facie cas eW e also no te that, w h atev er the m erit s o f T h o m as’ c h an g e-in-the -l aw arg u m en t bef o re 2 w e r ender ed ourdeci s ion i n Pi err e, w e fi nd anyal l eged e r r ort o be harm l es s . T hom as eff ect i vel yconce des , as he m us t , t hat t he s peci fi c i nt ents t andar d w e s anct i oned i n Pi err e now c o n tro ls h is ca se . T h u s, n o m a tter w h e th e r th e B IA a p p lied th e w ro n g sta n d a rd in 2 0 0 7 to T h o m a s’ C A T c laim , the sta n d a rd it i n d isp u ta b ly d id a p p lyis th e sta n d a rd p re se n tly g o v e r n i n g CA T c l a i ms . S e e P i e r r e , 5 2 8 F . 3 d a t 1 9 0
- 9 1 ( a p p l y i n g M a t t e ro f J
- E
- t o a CA T claim b rou g h t byan ali en w h o w as to b e re p atri ated to H ait i)
. 8 sta n d a rd
. . . req u ire s th e a p p lica n t to p ro d u c e o b jec tiv e e v id e n c e sh o w in g a ‘re a so n a b le l i kel i hood’ t hathe ca n es t abl i s h t hathe i s m or e l i kel y than n ott o be t or tur ed. ” ( ci t at i ons
o m itted)); see a lso R ag en C o rp. v. K ea rne y & T rec k er C o rp., 9 1 2 F . 2 d 6 1 9 , 6 2 5 -26 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 0 ). V. T ur ni ng t o T hom as ’ fi r star gum ent , w e not e thatan i nt er veni ng change i n t he l aw contr ol l i ng C A T cl ai m s does not , underthe r egul at i ons , excus e an othe rw ise t i m e- or
num ber
- barr ed mot i on t o r eopen. See 8 C
. F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 3)
. T hus , t he B I A ’ s deci s i on not to g ra n t T h o m a s’ m o tio n o n th e b a sis o f a n ya lleg e d c h a n g e in law f a lls sq u a re lyw ith in its di s cr et i onaryauthor i t yt o r eopen s ua s pont e, w hi ch w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew . See C al l eV u ji les v
. A sh cro ft, 3 2 0 F . 3 d 4 7 2 , 4 7 4 -75 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). 2 W i t h r es pect t o T hom as ’ s econd ar gum ent , w e not ed i n Sevoi an t hatt her e ar e thr ee groun ds on w hich t he B IA m ayden ya m oti on t o reope n im m i grat i on proceed i ng s.

F i r s t , i tma y h o l d t h a t t h e mo v a n t h a s f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a p r i ma fac i e ca s e for t he r el i ef s ought
. . . . Second, i tm ayhol d t hatt he m ovanthas fai l ed t o i nt r oduce pr evi ous l yunavai l abl e, m at er i al evi den ce that j us t i fi es r eopeni ng. . . . T hi r d, i n cas es i n w hi ch t he ul t i m at e gr ant of r el i ef be i ng s oughti s di s cr et i onary( as y l um9 . . . butno t w it h h o l di ng of deport at i on) , t he B oar d can l eap ahea d overt he tw o t hr es h o ld c oncerns ( pr i m a fa ci e ca s e and new evi dence /r eas onabl e e x p lana ti o n ) an d sim p lyd et erm i ne that e v e n i f t h e y wer e me t , t h e mov a n t wou l d n o t b e e n t i t l e d t o t he di s cr et i onarygr antof r el i ef. G uo v. A s hcr oft , 386 F. 3d 556, 564 n. 8 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( quot i ng Sevoi an, 290 F. 3d at169- 70)
. T hom as ar gues t hatt he B I A abus ed i t s di s cr et i on byi m pr oper l ydeny i ng hi s m ot i on on t he fi r s tof thes e gr ounds
. W e fi nd, how ever , t hatt he B I A actual l ydeni ed Thom as ’ m ot i on t o r eopen ba s ed upon the s econd Sevoi an gr ound. T he i ns t ant m ot i on t o r eopen i s T hom as ’ s econd, br ought near l y four y ear s aft ert he B I A ’ s fi nal det er m i nat i on of the mer i t s of hi s C A T cl ai m . T hus , i ti s generall y bot h t i m eand number
- barr ed undert he r egul at i ons . See 8 C
. F. R . § 1003. 2( c) ( 2) ( “Exceptas pr ovi ded i n par agr aph ( c) ( 3) of thi s s ect i on, a part ym ayfi l e onl yone mot i on t o r eopen de por t at i on or
e x c lu sio n p ro c e e d in g s . . . a n d th a t m o tio n m u st b e f iled n o late r th a n 9 0 d a y s a f ter th e d a te
on w hi ch t he fi nal admi ni s t r at i ve deci s i on w as r ender ed i n t he pr ocee di ng so u g h t t o be
r eopene d .
. . . ”)
. T he r egul at i ons , how ever , pr ovi de t hatt he t i m e and numer i cal l i m i t at i ons t hatt ypi cal l yappl yt o m ot i ons t o r eopen m ay be w ai ved i f the mot i ons ar e “ba s ed on cha nged ci r cumst ance s ar i s i ng i n t he countr y of nat i onal i t y or i n t he countr y t o w hi ch depor t at i on has been or der ed, i f s uch evi dence is m at er i al and w as notavai l abl e and c oul d nothave be en d is c o v e re d o r p re s e n te d a t th e p re v io u s h e a ri n g .” 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 (c )( 3 )( ii)
. T hus , w i t h an otherw i s e t i m e- and num ber
- barr ed mot i on t o r eopen br oughtpur s uant t o § 1003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i ) , t he B I A fi r s t cons i der s w hethert he pet i t i onerhas pr oved, bym at er i al10

e v id e n c e n o t o th e rw ise a v a ilab le a t th e tim e o f th e p re v io u s h e a rin g , tha t circ u m sta n c e s in t he count r y of depor t at i on have s uffi ci ent l ychange d t o w arr antr eopeni ng. See, e. g. , Shar dar
v. A t t ’ yG en. , 503 F. 3d. 308, 314- 15 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( exa m ining the r ecor d i n a § 1003. 2( c) ( 3) ( i i ) cas e forevi dence of cha nged ci r cumst ance s , and nott he l i kel i hood of t or tur e) ; s ee a l s o Fi l

j a, 447 F. 3d at255- 56. T hi s d eterm ina t i on does notcons i derw hether t he pet i t i onerw oul d be ent i t l ed t o s ubs t ant i ve r el i ef. Pr i m a fac i e el i gi bi l i t y fors ubs t ant i ve
r el i ef, t her efor e, i s i ns uffi ci entw hen an ot herw i s e unt i m el y m ot i on fai l s t o es t abl i s h a cha nge i n c o u n t r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s . S e e 8 C
. F . R . § 1 0 0 3
. 2 ( a ) ( “ T h e B o a r d h a s d i s c r e t i o n t o d e n y a
m o ti o n to reo p en ev en if the pa rty m o v ing h as m ad e ou t a prim a fa cie case fo r reli ef
. ”). In
e f f e c t , t h e “ c h a n g e d c i r c u ms t a n c e s ” c r i t e r i a i s a p r o c e d u r a l h u r d l e t h a tmu s tb e o v e r c o me befor e an unt i m el ym ot i on t o r eopen maybe cons i der ed. See Shar dar , 503 F. 3d at314. I n i t s deci s i on , the B I A pr oper l ydet er m i ned w hetherT hom as had “e s t abl i s hed
c h a n g e d c irc u m sta n c e s in H a iti th a t w a rra n t re o p e n in g .” A p p . at 2 . In m a k in g its det er m i nat i on, t he B I A found thatdocum en t s s ubm i t t ed byT hom as di d “nots how t hat condi t i ons i n H ai t i ha[d] w or s ened s i nce the t i m e of [ hi s ] r emov al h ea ri n g [i n 2003]
. ” I d. at3. T he B I A al s o found t hat r ece nt D epart m ent of St at e r epor t s “s how [ed] no w or s eni ng i n t or tur e i n H ai t i an pr i s ons and a dec r eas e i n t or tur e gene r al l y , ” and thatnon- governm ent al
o rg a n iza tio n s lik e th e R e d C ro ss “ m o n ito re d p r is o n c o n d iti o n s a n d o f f e r a ss ista n c e to p ri s o n e rs .” Id . T h u s , th e B IA f o u n d a s a m a tte r o f

f a c t th a t th e re h a d n o t b e e n a c h a n g e (i .e ., a w or s eni ng) i n ci r cumst ance s i n H ai t i t o w arr antr eopeni ng T hom as ’ cas e.B eca us e w e fi nd t he B I A pr oper l ydeni ed Thom as ’ m ot i on as un ti m ely , w e nee d not 3 a d d r e s s wh e t h e rt h e B I A a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n f i n d i n g T h o m a s f

a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h p r i ma f a c i e e l i g i b i l i t yf

o rr e l i e f u n d e rt h e CA T. 11 W e fi nd, t h ere for e, t hatt he B I A pr oper l ydeni ed Thom as ’ m ot i on t o r eopen a s unt i m el y . A bs enta s how i ng of cha nged ci r cumst ances i n H ai t i , t he B I A need nothave
cons i der ed the mer i t s of Thom as ’ C A T cl ai m beca us e hi s m ot i on w as bot h t i m e- and
num ber
- barr ed undert he re g u lat i ons . For the r eas ons s etfor t h above, w e w i l l aff i r m t he deci s i on of the B I A and denyT hom as ’ Pet i t i on. 3