IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60458

Summary Calendar

MARLON JONATHAN OBANDO-AYALA,

Petitioner

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A099 652 991

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marlon Jonathan Obando-Ayala, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions this court to review the denial of his second motion to reopen in 

absentia removal proceedings. Obando-Ayala claims that the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA) abused its discretion in denying his motion to

reopen based on numerous grounds, which can be summarized as follows: (1) 

the BIA erred in determining that he had not satisfied the requirements set 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 18, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60458 Document: 00513596016 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/18/2016
No. 15-60458

2

out in Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1998), for bringing a claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) the BIA erred in determining that he 

had failed to show changed conditions in El Salvador that would warrant 

reopening to allow him to apply for asylum.

We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying ObandoAyala’s motion to reopen. See Barrios-Cantarero v. Holder, 772 F.3d 1019, 

1021 (5th Cir. 2014). The BIA properly concluded that Obando-Ayala had 

failed to comply with the Lozada requirements because he submitted no 

evidence that his first attorney had received notice of the allegations against 

him. Obando-Ayala argues that it would have been futile for him to contact 

his former attorney because he had been disbarred by the California Supreme 

Court. Obando-Ayala has cited no authority from this court holding that an

alien is relieved of the notice requirement under Lozada when his former 

counsel has been disbarred. Indeed, this court has rejected similar arguments 

for a flexible approach to Lozada. See Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487, 497-

98 (5th Cir. 2000).

Furthermore, Obando-Ayala’s evidence does not establish changed 

conditions in El Salvador that would warrant reopening based on a claim for 

asylum. Instead, the evidence presented shows only a continuation of the gang 

violence that existed at the time of his removal, which is insufficient. This 

court has upheld the denial of a motion to reopen where the evidence of 

changed conditions showed only a continuance of ongoing violence in the 

petitioner’s home country. See, e.g., Ramos v. Lynch, 622 F. App’x 432, 433 

(5th Cir. 2015) (holding that general corruption and violence in Honduras did 

not amount to changed country conditions); Thomas v. Holder, 396 F. App’x 60, 

61 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding that political corruption and gang violence that had 

been occurring in Jamaica since the 1960s did not represent changed country 

 Case: 15-60458 Document: 00513596016 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2016
No. 15-60458

3

conditions). Moreover, Obando-Ayala’s assertion that he fears for his safety 

upon returning to El Salvador given the threats and violence experienced by 

his relatives, amounts to a change in personal circumstances, which is also 

insufficient. See Gatamba v. Holder, 485 F. App’x 690, 691 (5th Cir. 2012).

Based on the forgoing, Obando-Ayala’s petition is DENIED.

 Case: 15-60458 Document: 00513596016 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/18/2016