[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 10 12 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 79 47 8 2 11 CRIS TIAN HOYOS SALA ZAR, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jul y 30 , 20 12 ) Befo re CARNES, WILSON andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Cri st ia n Ho y os Sal azar(“ Hoyos” ), a ci ti zenof C ol om bi a, pe ti ti on s fo r Case: 12-10120 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 1 of 5rev ie w of t he BIA’s de ni al of h is m ot io n t o re op enba se d o n c ha ng edco un try

co nd it io ns . On ap pe al , Hoy os st at es th atth e und erl y in g b as is forhi s m ot io n t o reo pe n i s the subs eque ntgra ntof h is pa ren ts ’ as y lu m ap pl ic at io ns . Hoy os arg ue s th atth e BIA ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g h is m ot io n t o re op enbe cau se th e BIA fai le d t o c on si de r al l o f th e ev id en ce s ub m it te d wi thth e m ot io n; th e ev id en ce subm it te d wi th Hoyos’s m ot io n p ur po rts to sh ow tha t s in ce h is ap pl ic at io n fo r as y lu m an d wi th ho ld in g o f rem ov al was d en ie d i n 2 00 4, the pe rs ecu ti on in Co lo m bi a h as co nt in ue d t o e sc al at e. W e rev ie w th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o re op enforanab us e o f di sc ret io n. Ji an g v . U.S. Att ’y Gen ., 56 8 F .3d12 52 , 12 56 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Our re vi ew is li mit edto de te rm in in g wh ethe r th e BIA ex erci se d i ts di sc ret io n i n an a rb it rary or cap ric io us m an ne r. Id . A party m ay

on ly file on e m ot io n t o re op enrem ov al pro ceed in gs , andth at m ot io n “ sh al l s ta te th e n ew fact s tha t wi ll be pro ve n a t a h eari ng to be he ldif the m ot io n i s g ran te d, an d s ha ll be supp orte d b y affi da vi ts or o th er ev id en ti ary m at eri al .” INA § 2 40 (c)( 7) (A), (B); 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a(c) (7 )(A), (B) . Und er 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a (c)( 7) (C)( i), a“ m ot io n t o re op ensh al l b e fi le d wi th in 90 da y s o f th e d at e o f en try of a fi na l ad min is tra ti ve ord er o f rem ov al ,” subjec t t o c ert ai n ex cep ti on s. INA § 24 0( c)(7 )(C) (i) ; 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a (c)( 7) (C)( i). Th e 9 0- da y 2 Case: 12-10120 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 2 of 5pe rio d fo r fi li ng a m ot io n t o re op enis juri sd ic ti on al an d m an da to ry . Abdi v. U.S.

Att ’y Gen . , 43 0 F .3d11 48 , 11 50 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). An ex cep ti on to th e ti m e an d nu m be r li m itap pl ie s i f th e m ot io n t o re op enis forth e p ur po se of r eap pl y in g fo r rel ie f “ba se d o n c ha ng edcir cu m st an ces ari si ng inth e co un try of n at io na li ty or in th e co un try to wh ic h d ep orta ti on ha s b eenord ered , if s uc h e vi de nc e is m at eri al an d was no t av ai labl e an d c ou ldno t h av e b eendi sc ov eredor p res en te d a t the pre vi ou s he ari ng .” 8 C.F .R. § 1 00 3.2 (c)(3 )(i i); se e INA § 2 40 (c)( 7) (C)( ii ); 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9a (c)( 7) (C)( ii ). W e h av e h el d t ha t, ata m in im um , th e BIA m ay

de ny a m ot io n t o re op enon th e fo ll owi ng th ree g ro un ds : (1 ) fai lu re t o e st ab li sh a pr ima fa ci e cas e; (2) fai lu re to in tro du ce ev id en ce tha t was m at eri al an d p rev io us ly una va il ab le ; o r (3 ) a de te rm in at io n t ha t an ali enis no t en ti tl edto a fav or ab le ex erci se of d is cret io n de sp it e st atut ory

eli gi bi li ty for rel ie f. Al Na jj ar v. Ash cr of

t , 25 7 F .3d12 62 , 13 02 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . Eve n i n the co nt ex t o f a ru li ng onth e m eri ts , th e BIA o r th e IJis no t requi redto di sc us s i n i ts op in io n e ve ry pi ece o f ev id en ce p res en te d. Ta n v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 44 6 F .3d13 69 , 13 74 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Whe re the BIA h as gi ve n reas on edco ns id erat io n t o t he pe ti ti on , andm ad e ad equa te fin di ng s, we wi ll no t requi re tha t i t ad dr es s s pe ci fic al ly each c la im th e p et it io ne r m ad e o r eac h p ie ce o f 3 Case: 12-10120 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 3 of 5ev id en ce the pe ti ti on er p res en te d. Se e id. Rathe r, th e BIA m us t “ co ns id er the is su es rai se d a ndan no un ce i ts de ci si on interm s s uf fic ie ntto en ab le a rev ie win g co urt t o p erce iv e th atitha s h eardan d t ho ug htan d n otm erel y reac te d.” Se e id . The BIA d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g Ho y os ’s m ot io n t o re op en , be cau se th atm ot io n was un ti m el y an d Ho y os fai le d t o e st ab li sh ch an ge d c ou nt ry co nd it io ns inCo lo m

bi a. The fa ctth atHoyos’s fa m il y was g ran te d a sylum

in20 09 ba se d o n t he same setof f act s d oe s n otest ab li sh th atco nd it io ns inCo lo m bi a h av e m at eri al ly chan ge d s in ce the BIA affi rm edHoyos’s o rd er o f rem ov al in20 04 . In supp ort o f hi s m ot io n t o re op en , Hoy os subm it te d fo uraffi da vi ts fro m th ree p eo pl e in Co lo m bi a who ren te d Ho y os ’s fam il y ’s ho m e an d h is fathe r’s affi da vi t s ta ti ng th athe was u nabl e to ren t the ir h om e in Co lo m bi a b ecau se pe op le ass oc iate d wi th FARC c on ti nu edto sea rch foran d t hr eat enHoyos andhi s fa mil y . Thes e aff id av it s do no t es tabl is h c hang edco un try con di ti on s i n C ol om bi a, bu t i ns te adsh ow tha t h e face d the same fear o f pe rs ecu ti on th athe di d a t the ti m e o f hi s re m ov al he ari ng . Lik ewis e, th e ex pe rt wi tn es s af fid av itan d the 20 10 Sta te Depa rtment C ou nt ry Rep ort ar e n otm at eri al be cau se th ey do no t es tabl is h c ha ng edco un try con di ti on s in Co lo m bi a. The a ffi davi t an d t he Co un try Repo rt s ho w th atFARC co nt in ues to co m m ithu m anrig ht s ab us e an d v io le nc e in Co lo m bi a. Havi ng no t d em on st rat ed m at eri al ly chan ge d c ou nt ry co nd it io ns , Hoy os ’s m ot io n t o re op enwas b ot h t im e4 Case: 12-10120 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 4 of 5an d n um

be r-b arre d. Se e INA § 2 40 (c)( 7) (A), (C); 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 a(c) (7 )(A), (C) ; 8 C .F.R. §1 00 3.2 (c)( 3) (ii ). Altho ug h Ho y os arg ue s tha t the BIA ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g h is m ot io n t o re op enbe cau se th e BIA fa il edto co ns id er al l o f th e ev id en ce s ub m it te d, th e rec or d s ho ws tha t the BIA n ot edth atHoyos s ub mitte d “ li m it edev id en ce” wi th hi s m ot io n b utco nc lu de d tha t the ev id en ce d idno t d em on st rat e ch an ge d c ou nt ry co nd it io ns . Becau se th e BIA ad equa te ly exp la in edth e d eci si on , itwas n ot requi redto pro vi de a de ta il edex pl an at io n abo utho w th e aff id av it s an d C ou nt ry Rep ort d idno t s up po rt Ho y os ’s cla im of c ha ng edco un try con di ti on s. Se e Ta n , 44 6 F .3dat 1 37 4. PETI TI ON DENI ED.

5 Case: 12-10120 Date Filed: 07/30/2012 Page: 5 of 5