In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

No. 19-2081

MARIA MERCEDES LOPEZ-GARCIA,

et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

of the United States,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals.

Nos. A206-450-595, A206-450-596, A206-450-597 and A206-450-598.

ARGUED DECEMBER 2, 2019 — DECIDED AUGUST 11, 2020

Before SYKES, Chief Judge, and BAUER and EASTERBROOK,

Circuit Judges.

BAUER, Circuit Judge. Maria Lopez-Garcia and her three

minor children, Luisa, Wendy, and Rolando Lopez-Lopez are

natives and citizens of Guatemala. We consider whether the
2 No. 19-2081

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) abused its discretion in

denying their motions to reconsider and reopen. Upon review,

we find no abuse of discretion by the BIA and deny the

petition.

I. BACKGROUND

In 2008, Lopez-Garcia’s husband, Arnoldo Rene LopezLopez, left for the United States to pursue economic opportunity. In May of 2014, Lopez-Garcia and her children entered

the United States without valid entry documents. Immigration

enforcement officers apprehended them. An asylum officer

found that she demonstrated a credible fear of persecution or

torture in Guatemala. Lopez-Garcia and her children were

placed in removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a. LopezGarcia, with counsel, filed an I-589 application for asylum

listing her three children as derivative beneficiaries.

In her affidavit and at the hearing, Lopez-Garcia shared her

experience of being a single mother in Guatemala. After her

husband left for the United States, he sent her a money order

each month, which she cashed at the bank. The journey to the

bank involved an hour walk through mountains, along cliffs,

through a forest on unpaved paths, and a bus ride that would

take her into town. In 2013, Lopez-Garcia and her mother

noticed two men in front of the bank looking at them and

believed the men were following them.

Over the next year, Lopez-Garcia received three telephone

calls from an unidentified male caller demanding money. On

the first call, the man threatened to find out where she lived

and harm her. On the second call, he asked her for 25,000

Guetzales and threatened to find out where her children went
No. 19-2081 3

to school. She reported the call to the police and took her

children to live with her parents. The third time the man called,

he asked for 50,000 Guetzales. The man said he knew her

husband was in the United States and threatened to kidnap her

children or kill her and her children. In April of 2014, LopezGarcia and her three children left for the United States.

In July of 2017, the Immigration Judge found that the

threats made against Lopez-Garcia and her children in

Guatemala did not qualify as past persecution. The Immigration Judge did not find her membership in the proposed

particular social group of “Guatemalan females living with her

children alone in their country, as their husbands had migrated

to the United States and are not able to support or protect

themselves and their children” to be the persecutory motive of

the men in front of the bank or the caller. Furthermore, LopezGarcia did not show that the Guatemalan government was

unwilling or unable to protect her and she did not show a wellfounded fear of future harm. The Immigration Judge denied

the application for protection under the Convention Against

Torture.

Lopez-Garcia appealed in September 2018 and the BIA

affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision. In October, LopezGarcia moved for reconsideration. While the motion to

reconsider was still pending, Lopez-Garcia filed a timely

motion to reopen her case. In 2019, the BIA denied both

motions and held that she rehashed the same arguments

already considered and that it considered all the evidence and

the additional new evidence was not material to the BIA’s

assessment. This petition for review followed.
4 No. 19-2081

II. DISCUSSION

Petitioners raise additional arguments than they raised

before the BIA. Aliens must raise their arguments before the

BIA in order to be reviewed upon appeal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).

Given there was no review of a petition for the underlying

removal order, arguments that Petitioners make now are not

adequately preserved. FH-T v. Holder, 723 F.3d 833, 841 (7th

Cir. 2013) (“[A]n alien must exhaust all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right, ... and this includes the

obligation first to present to the Board any arguments that lie

within its power to address.” (internal quotation marks

omitted)). The purpose of exhausting all administrative

remedies available before the BIA is to allow the BIA to apply

their “specialized knowledge and experience” in this legal

area, which then lends us “reasoning to review.” Minghai Tian

v. Holder, 745 F.3d 822, 826 (7th Cir. 2014).

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2, a motion to reconsider or a

motion to reopen is within the discretion of the BIA. We have

jurisdiction to review the motions to reconsider and reopen.

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider and a

motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Mungongo v.

Gonzales, 479 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007) (motion to reconsider); Salim v. Holder, 728 F.3d. 718, 720 (7th Cir. 2013) (motion

to reopen). We will not overturn the BIA unless their decision

is “made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed

from established polices, or rested on an impermissible basis.”

Salim, 728 F.3d at 720 (citing Awad v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 336, 341

for a motion to reopen; see also Mungongo, 479 F.3d at 534

(citing Singh v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1024, 1027 (7th Cir. 2005) for

a motion to reconsider)).
No. 19-2081 5

In regard to Petitioners’ motion to reconsider, they essentially rehashed the same arguments already considered by the

BIA, which include being targeted because of membership in

the particular social group proposed. While three threatening

calls from an unidentified male were made over several

months, Petitioners were not physically harmed. Furthermore,

Petitioners failed to show that relocation within Guatemala to

avoid harm was unreasonable or that a person acting in official

capacity in Guatemala will acquiesce to torture inflicted by

criminals who threatened but never harmed Petitioners.

Although the Petitioners disagreed with the BIA’s decision,

“motions to reconsider ... are not replays of the main event.”

Rehman v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 506, 508 (7th Cir. 2006). Upon our

review, we find no legal or factual defect, oral argument or

aspect of the case, that was overlooked or downright unreasonable. The BIA has shown that they have considered all of the

merits before denying the Petitioners’ motion to reconsider. 

In regard to a motion to reopen, the BIA has broad discretion. INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992). “A motion to

reopen proceedings shall state the new facts that will be

proven at a hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). “A motion to

reopen proceedings shall not be granted unless it appears to

the Board that the evidence sought to be offered is material and

was not available and could not have been discovered or

presented at the former hearing.” Id. Here, the Petitioners

argue that reopening is warranted based on what they perceived as new material evidence of the conditions in Guatemala. However, the additional information submitted offered

no new material evidence. It only contributed to the evidence

that Guatemala continues to have widespread violence and
6 No. 19-2081

crime, but it did not address the deficiencies of their claims.

The additional information did not change the assessment that

the fears suffered by the Petitioners supported asylum.

III. CONCLUSION

The Petitioners are unable to show that the BIA’s decision

in denying their motions to reconsider and reopen is an abuse

of discretion. Therefore, the petition for review is DENIED.