[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-11518

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

ALBERIC ISRAEL, 

a.k.a. Alberie Israel,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A042-355-073

USCA11 Case: 23-11518 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 06/27/2024 Page: 1 of 10
2 Opinion of the Court 23-11518

____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Alberic Israel, proceeding pro se, seeks review of a Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying as untimely his 

motion to reopen his removal proceedings so that he could present 

new evidence in support of his claim for deferral of removal under 

the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). He argues that the BIA 

abused its discretion because his motion was based on changed 

country conditions that could not have been presented earlier, 

which established his eligibility for an exception to the time bar. 

After careful review, we deny Israel’s petition. 

I. Background

Israel, a native of Haiti, was admitted to the United States as 

a “Lawful Permanent Resident” in February 1990. In 2007, Israel 

was convicted of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and was 

sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment for shooting his 

girlfriend, Sheila Mesadieu. Citing this conviction, in 2015, the 

Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) issued Israel a Notice 

to Appear (“NTA”) before a United States Immigration Judge (“IJ”)

“to show why [he] should not be removed from the United 

States.”1 

1 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) provides that “[a]ny alien who is convicted of an 

aggravated felony at any time after admission is deportable.”

USCA11 Case: 23-11518 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 06/27/2024 Page: 2 of 10
23-11518 Opinion of the Court 3

In 2017, Israel appeared pro se before an IJ and admitted the 

factual allegations in the NTA. The IJ informed Israel that his only 

available relief was deferral of removal under the CAT. The IJ 

provided Israel an opportunity to file a CAT motion, and instructed 

Israel that he would need to “prove that [he was] going to be 

tortured by the [Haitian] government” if he was deported. 

Israel then applied for asylum, withholding removal, and 

CAT relief. He claimed that he feared torture if he was removed 

to Haiti because Mesadieu’s brother, Edwin, along with Mesadieu’s 

cousin and two police officers, had killed Israel’s brother in 

retaliation for Israel shooting Mesadieu. He stated that Edwin was 

“at large in Haiti, well off and connected,” and that it was common 

knowledge that “Haiti is very corrupt,” and police could be paid to 

put a hit on someone. And he stated that another member of 

Mesadieu’s family was a police officer, and still another was a 

mayor. Ultimately, Israel stated that he feared that if he were 

deported he would be killed by a member of Mesadieu’s family in 

retaliation for shooting Mesadieu. 

The DHS submitted a country report for Haiti, which noted 

that civilian authorities had “effective control over the security 

forces,” but that the “most serious impediments to human rights 

involved . . . the lack of an elected and functioning government; 

insufficient respect for the rule of law . . . ; and chronic widespread 

corruption.” There were “isolated allegations of arbitrary and 

unlawful killings by government officials,” and credible reports “of 

officials engaging in corrupt practices” despite government 

USCA11 Case: 23-11518 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 06/27/2024 Page: 3 of 10
4 Opinion of the Court 23-11518

attempts to prosecute officials who committed abuses. Civil

groups “continued to allege widespread impunity” on the part of 

police officers who “committed abuses or fraud.”

At the merits hearing on his application for asylum, 

withholding removal, and CAT relief, Israel reiterated his fear of 

the Haitian government, because Mesadieu’s family had political 

power and Mesadieu’s family had killed Israel’s brother in 

retaliation for Israel shooting Mesadieu. 

The IJ denied Israel’s application and ordered Israel’s 

removal to Haiti. The IJ found Israel removable for having been 

convicted of an aggravated felony and a firearm offense, which

made him ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal. As to 

his request for deferral of removal under the CAT, the IJ found that 

Israel’s testimony was insufficiently credible to meet his burden of 

proof, and that even if it were credible, he had not established a 

clear probability of government-involved torture. The BIA 

affirmed this ruling on appeal.

In February 2023, Israel filed another motion with the BIA, 

which he titled a “Renewed Request for Relief from Removal 

Proceedings,” and which the BIA construed as a motion to reopen.2 

He stated that he wished to “rely upon new facts, information, and

argument” in support of his request for CAT relief. He asserted 

2 Israel also filed a motion to reopen in 2019, which the BIA denied. We 

dismissed in part and denied in part Israel’s petition on appeal. Israel v. U.S. 

Att’y Gen., 861 F. App’x 371 (11th Cir. 2021). 

USCA11 Case: 23-11518 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 06/27/2024 Page: 4 of 10
23-11518 Opinion of the Court 5

that at the merits hearing, he had “put forth what facts were 

available to him at that time” to show his risk of being tortured or 

killed in Haiti, but that “[s]ince that time the circumstances in Haiti, 

especially as they would apply to [him] now, ha[d] dramatically 

changed.” He then stated:

[A]s this governmental office is assuredly aware, 

Haiti’s president was assassinated in 2021. A current 

country report will show that since that time the 

country has been overrun by [criminal] gangs with 

what government that still remains, including 

[Mesadieu’s] aunt who is a mayor in Port-De-Paix and 

cousins who are police officers in St. Louis Du Nord, 

acting as their proxies.

Israel contended that if he were removed to Haiti now, he would 

“at a minimum . . . face total ostr[ac]ization (leading to a complete 

inability to survive),” and he had “no doubt, none whatsoever, that 

when returned to Haiti he [would] be killed.” As support, he 

asserted that he and some of his family members had “been advised 

that [Mesadieu’s] family[,] who as previously mentioned either 

hold positions in the Haitian government themselves or hold 

strong influence over many others (especially police) who do,” had 

vowed to avenge his “accidental[] shooting” of her, as well as her 

later death, “even though she actually died from causes unrelated

to her being shot.” He stated that Mesadieu’s family was “large 

and spread acrossthe breadth of the country.” Israel did not submit 

any evidence or documents with his motion.

USCA11 Case: 23-11518 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 06/27/2024 Page: 5 of 10
6 Opinion of the Court 23-11518

The BIA denied Israel’s motion to reopen. The BIA 

determined that Israel’s motion was untimely and did not establish 

his eligibility for an exception to the time bar. The BIA recognized 

that the time bar generally did not apply to motions that sought 

reopening to apply for asylum or withholding of removal based on 

changed country conditions, “if such evidence [was] material and 

was not available and could not have been discovered or presented 

at the former hearing.” However, the BIA noted that Israel had not 

submitted any evidence of current conditions in Haiti, nor had he 

“meaningfully compared present conditions in Haiti with those 

that existed at the time of his 2017 [merits] hearing,” despite 

referring to changed country conditionsin his motion. Further, the 

BIA concluded that even if it took “administrative notice of the 

recent political upheaval and violence in Haiti, this [was] 

insufficient to show that [Israel was] personally at risk for torture 

upon his return.” Finally, the BIA declined to exercise its sua sponte 

authority to reopen Israel’s removal proceedings. 

II. Discussion

Israel argues that the BIA erred by denying his motion to 

reopen as untimely because he was eligible for an exception to the 

time bar. Specifically, he argues that the time bar should not apply 

because his motion was based on changed conditions that could

not have been presented at the prior hearing. Israel contends that, 

although his fear of retribution from Mesadieu’s relatives and 

“their criminal proxies” is the same claim he presented in his 

original CAT application, “the [current] country conditions in Haiti 

have worsened to the point that the very people who intend to 

USCA11 Case: 23-11518 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 06/27/2024 Page: 6 of 10
23-11518 Opinion of the Court 7

harm [him] . . . can now act [with impunity] in carrying out their 

misguided revenge.” He also argues that the BIA erred in faulting 

him for not submitting country conditions evidence because he 

lacked the means to procure such evidence while incarcerated. 

Nevertheless, he contends that it is “common knowledge” that 

Haiti is facing a “downward spiral into lawlessness and disorder,” 

with a dramatic increase in the murder rate, proliferation of firearm 

possession, political instability, and worsening economic 

conditions.” In light of these conditions, he argues that, if the 

matter were reopened, he would be able to present sufficient 

evidence—consisting of “affidavits [that his] family members will 

obtain”—to show that, if he were removed, “members of [the 

Haitian] government and their criminal gang member underlings 

will kill him.” 

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse 

of discretion, which “is limited to determining whether the BIA 

exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” Zhang 

v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2009). Motions to 

reopen are generally disfavored because delay tends to work to the 

advantage of deportable aliens. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 

(1992).

The INA provides that an alien may file one motion to 

reopen removal proceedings, and it must be filed within 90 days 

after issuance of the final administrative order of removal. 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i). The 90-day time limit, however, does not 

apply to a motion that seeks reopening to apply for relief from 

USCA11 Case: 23-11518 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 06/27/2024 Page: 7 of 10
8 Opinion of the Court 23-11518

removal, including CAT relief, based on changed conditions in the 

country of removal, if the changed conditions are material and 

could not have been discovered during the removal proceedings. 

Blake v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 945 F.3d 1175, 1178 (11th Cir. 2019); see 8 

U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).

“An alien who attempts to show that the [changed country 

conditions] evidence is material bears a heavy burden and must 

present evidence”—in the form of “affidavits or other evidentiary 

materials,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B)—“that demonstrates that, if 

the proceedings were opened, the new evidence would likely 

change the result in the case.” Jiang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 

1256–57 (11th Cir. 2009); see also Blake, 945 F.3d at 1179.

3

 So where, 

as here, an alien seeks to reopen a motion for CAT relief, the alien

must show that the changed country conditions would likely 

change the outcome in her case—that is, the changed conditions 

make it “more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if 

3 In addition to the statutory authority to reopen removal proceedings, the 

BIA has the sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings, upon written motion, 

at any time. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s 

refusal to sua sponte reopen removal proceedings, as this decision is committed

to agency discretion by law and there are no meaningful standards governing 

the BIA’s exercise of its discretion. Lenis v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 1291, 1293 

(11th Cir. 2008).

USCA11 Case: 23-11518 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 06/27/2024 Page: 8 of 10
23-11518 Opinion of the Court 9

removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1208.16(c)(2).4 

Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Israel’s 

motion to reopen as untimely. First, it is undisputed that Israel 

filed his motion outside the general 90-day deadline. 8 U.S.C. § 

1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). Second, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in 

concluding that Israel had not established changed country 

conditions, as required for the statutory exception to the time bar, 

because he did not submit any evidence with his motion. See 8 

U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B) (“The motion to reopen . . . shall be 

supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.”). And third, 

the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that, even if the 

conditions were as Israel supposed—the assassination of Haiti’s 

president, the rise of gang activity, and the Mesadieu family’s 

governmental ties and desire to kill him—Israel did not meet the 

materiality requirement because that evidence is not “likely [to] 

change the result in the case.” Jiang, 568 F.3d at 1257. As to the 

presidential assassination and rise in gang violence, such assertions 

do not, on their face, materially increase the risk that Israel would

be personally subject to government-involved torture within the 

meaning of the CAT. Zhang, 572 F.3d at 1319; Jiang, 568 F.3d at 

1257; Blake, 945 F.3d at 1179. Moreover, corruption and criminal 

violence were conditions that were present in Haiti at the time of 

4 “Torture,” as defined by the CAT, must be “inflicted by, or at the instigation 

of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official acting in an official 

capacity or other person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). 

USCA11 Case: 23-11518 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 06/27/2024 Page: 9 of 10
10 Opinion of the Court 23-11518

Israel’s initial motion in 2017, when he stated that “Haiti is very 

corrupt,” and when the DHS submitted a country report 

documenting “chronic[,] widespread corruption.” Similarly, as to 

the Mesadieu family’s governmental ties and desire to kill him, 

Israel cited this same threat in his 2017 motion, so this is not a 

changed condition. Thus, even accepting Israel’s unsupported 

statements as true, Israel has failed to show how conditions in Haiti 

have materially changed since his initial 2017 motion. Accordingly,

we deny Israel’s petition.

PETITION DENIED.

USCA11 Case: 23-11518 Document: 22-1 Date Filed: 06/27/2024 Page: 10 of 10