[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-13928

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A096-098-284

AUGUSTO RAMIREZ-MORENO,

MARTHA OLIVA SALAZAR-JIMENEZ,

STEPHANY RAMIREZ-SALAZAR,

NATHALIE RAMIREZ-SALAZAR,

Petitioners,

versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

___________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

____________________________

(July 30, 2013)

Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Augusto Ramirez-Moreno, his wife, and their two children (collectively, 

Case: 12-13928 Date Filed: 07/30/2013 Page: 1 of 6 
2

“petitioners”), all natives and citizens of Colombia, seek review of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals’ denial of their second motion to reopen their removal 

proceedings. The BIA denied the motion, which was untimely and number-barred, 

because the petitioners failed to show changed country conditions to qualify for an 

exception to the time and number limits applicable to motions to reopen. After 

reviewing the record and considering the parties’ arguments, we deny the petition.

I.

The petitioners came to the United States in 2002 and, claiming persecution

on the basis of political opinion, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). They argued 

that the National Liberation Army (ELN) had targeted them because they were 

closely associated with Mr. Ramirez-Moreno’s sister, who had opposed the ELN’s 

efforts to recruit students from a school at which she taught. The petitioners

asserted that, after Mr. Ramirez-Moreno’s sister moved to the United States to 

escape ELN persecution, members of that group twice threatened to kill them if 

Mr. Ramirez-Moreno did not provide his sister’s contact information and money 

he had earned while working in Mexico.

Despite finding Mr. Ramirez-Moreno’s testimony credible, the immigration 

judge denied the application for relief because the petitioners failed to show any 

nexus between the threats of harm they had suffered and a protected ground. The IJ 

Case: 12-13928 Date Filed: 07/30/2013 Page: 2 of 6 
3

found that the ELN’s interest in the petitioners stemmed from the group’s desire 

for information about Mr. Ramirez-Moreno’s sister and for money, not from the 

petitioners’ political opinion. The petitioners therefore had not been persecuted as 

required to be eligible for the relief they sought. The BIA agreed with the IJ and 

dismissed the petitioners’ appeal in 2004.

In 2010, the petitioners filed their first motion to reopen, which was based 

on changed country conditions. The BIA determined that the motion was untimely 

and that the petitioners had failed to show the changed country conditions required 

to excuse its lateness. Specifically, the BIA concluded that the petitioners had not 

submitted objective evidence that conditions in Colombia were materially different 

than they were when the IJ considered their application. The BIA also noted that 

even the subjective evidence the petitioners submitted—statements from relatives 

who had been menaced by unidentified people looking for Mr. Ramirez-Moreno—

failed to show a nexus between the feared harm and the petitioners’ political 

opinion.

The petitioners filed a second motion to reopen—the one that is the subject 

of this appeal—in 2011. As it did with the petitioners’ first motion, the BIA 

determined that their second motion was untimely and that they had not shown 

materially changed conditions in Colombia. The BIA also concluded that the 

petitioners’ motion was number-barred and that, although the petitioners’ relatives

Case: 12-13928 Date Filed: 07/30/2013 Page: 3 of 6 
4

attested that they still received threats directed at Mr. Ramirez-Moreno and could 

now identify those making the threats as ELN members, there remained no nexus 

between the feared harm and a statutory basis for relief. Finding that the petitioners

had failed to establish an exception to the time and number limits on motions to 

reopen, the BIA denied their second motion.

1

II.

We review the denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings for abuse 

of discretion, determining only whether the BIA exercised its discretion in an 

arbitrary or capricious manner. See Jiang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 1256 

(11th Cir. 2009). A party is generally limited to filing one motion to reopen, and 

that motion must be filed within ninety days of the BIA’s final order. See 8 U.S.C. 

1229a(c)(7). Cf. Ruiz-Turcios v. U.S. Att’y Gen., ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 2262470, 

at *1 (11th Cir. May 24, 2013) (noting that time limits on motions to reopen are 

subject to equitable tolling because they are non-jurisdictional and suggesting that 

the same is true of number limits). But the ninety-day deadline does not apply to 

motions based on evidence of “changed circumstances arising in the country of 

nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such 

 1 The BIA also found the petitioners ineligible for CAT relief because the threats against them 

were not made by a public official; the petitioners have waived any challenge to that finding by 

failing to argue the issue to us. See Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th 

Cir. 2005). The BIA opted not to use its sua sponte power to reopen, and we lack subject matter 

jurisdiction to review that decision. See Lenis v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 1291, 1294 (11th Cir. 

2008).

Case: 12-13928 Date Filed: 07/30/2013 Page: 4 of 6 
5

evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or 

presented at the previous hearing.” See 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). Unlike a 

change in country conditions, a change in personal circumstances cannot authorize

untimely motions to reopen. See Jiang, 568 F.3d at 1258.

III.

The petitioners argue that they have established an exception to the time and 

number limits on motions to reopen because they submitted evidence to the BIA 

that was unavailable at the time of the IJ’s decision. Although we agree with the 

petitioners that the events described by their relatives occurred after the IJ’s initial 

denial of relief—and that their family members’ recitations of those events is 

therefore new evidence—we do not agree that the evidence shows changed country 

conditions in Colombia as a whole. At most the evidence shows that, as the 

petitioners describe it, their “enemies are still looking for” them, and are doing so 

with an increased intensity.

The fact that the ELN has stepped up its surveillance efforts regarding the 

petitioners is certainly a change in their personal circumstances, but it does not rise 

to the level of changed country conditions. And despite citing to the U.S. 

Department of State’s country report on Colombia in their brief, the petitioners did 

not present that report—or any other objective evidence—to the BIA in support of 

their assertion that conditions in their home country had materially changed. 

Case: 12-13928 Date Filed: 07/30/2013 Page: 5 of 6 
6

Because changed personal circumstances alone cannot excuse a late motion to 

reopen, see Jiang, 568 F.3d at 1258, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it 

concluded that no exception to the filing deadline applied to the petitioners’ 

motion.2 The untimely and number-barred motion was therefore properly denied.

PETITION DENIED.

 2 The petitioners also argue that the BIA erred in “discredit[ing]” their “documents and 

credibility,” but the record demonstrates that the BIA expressed no opinion at all about the 

credibility of the petitioners’ evidence or their testimony. The only credibility finding ever made 

in this case came from the IJ at the petitioners’ initial hearing in 2003, and that finding was in the 

petitioners’ favor. As a result, we consider this argument to be without merit.

Case: 12-13928 Date Filed: 07/30/2013 Page: 6 of 6