N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C R UZ LOPEZ-VASQUEZ, AKA C ruz Lope z Va z que z and DAVID PER E ZLOPEZ, Pe titione rs, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 11-70901 Age n c y Nos. A077-838-364

A077-838-365 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 20, 2014 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd REINHAR

DT a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc u it Judge s . C ruz Lope z -Va sque z and he r son Da vid Pe re z -Lope z , both na

tive s a nd c itiz e ns of Gua

te m a la , pe tition for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ s 

# FIL ED D EC 10 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).(“ B IA” ) de c ision de ny i ng the ir m otion to re ope n re m ova l proc e e dings. W e have

jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252 a nd re vie w the B IA’ s de nia l of pe titione rs’ m otion for a

buse of disc re t ion. Tade v osy an v . Holde r , 743 F.3d 1250, 1252 (9th C ir. 2014). W e grant the pe tition for re vie w for the re a s ons se t forth be low. B e c a use the pa rtie s are fam ilia

r with thefa c tua l a

nd proc e d ura l history

of this c a se , we ne e d not re c o unt it he re . I

“ ‘ A m otion to re ope n is a tra ditiona l proc e dura l m e c ha nism in im m igration la w with a ba sic purpose tha

t ha s re m a ine d c onsta

nt – to give

a lie n s a m e ans to provide ne w inform at ion re le v ant to the ir c a se s to the im m igration a

uthoritie s.’ ” Me z a-Valle jos v . Holde r , 669 F.3d 920, 924 (9th C ir. 2012) (quoting Azarte v . Ashc roft , 394 F.3d 1278, 1283 (9th C ir. 2005)). Unde r the Ille ga l Im m i gration R e form and Im m igra nt R e sponsibility

Ac t (“ IIR IR

A” ), e ve ry

a lie n subje c t to re m ova l ha s the sta

tutory right to file

one m otion to re o pe n with theB IA. 8 U.S.C . § 1229a (c )(7)(A). Although tha t m otion ordina

rily m ust be file d within ninety da y s of the e ntry

of the re m ova l orde r, IIR IR A c re ate s an e x c e ption to this ge ne ra l rule for any

a lie n who se e ks to re ope n a sy lum proc e e dings in order to pre se nt ne w e vide nc e of “ c ha

nge d c ountry

c ondition a

rising in [his or he

r] c ountry of 2nationa lity

or the c ountry

to whic h re m ova l ha s be e n orde re d.” Id. §§ 1229a (c )(7)(C )(i)-(ii). B e c a use pe titione rs’ m otion he re is ba se d on c ha nge d c ountry c onditions in Gua

te m a l a , the ir m otion is not tim e -barre d . Nor is it ba

rre d by the “ de pa

rture rule .” Tha

t rule provide s tha

t a “ m otion to re ope n or a m otion to re c onside r sha ll not bem a d e by or on be ha lf of a pe rson who is the subje c t of e x c lusion, de porta t ion, or re m ova l proc e e dings subse que nt to his or he r de pa

rture from

the Unite d State s .” 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(d). The B IA he ld tha

t pe titione rs we re pre c lude d from m oving to re ope n unde r this rulebe c a u se the y ha d be e n re m ove d from

the Unite d State s in 2004, more tha n five y e ars be fore the y file d the insta nt m otion. Howe ve r, the B IA issue d its de c ision be fore we de c ide d Re y e s-Torre s v . Holde r , 645 F.3d 1073, 1076 (9th C ir. 2011), whic h he l d tha t the de pa rture rule doe s not pre c lude an a lie n from m oving to re ope n a fte r he or she ha s be e n re m ove d. As we e xpla ine d in tha t c a se , c onstruing the

de pa rture rule to pre c lude a

pre viously

re m o ve d a lie n from

filing a m otion to re o pe n would unde rm ine IIR IR

A’ s gua rante e tha t e ve ry a lie n subje c t to re m ova l ha s the right to file suc h a

m otion. Se eid. at 1077 (“ Afte r re vie wing thesta t ute s , we de t e rm ine d that ‘ the inte nt of C ongre ss is c le ar,’ and tha t ‘ in pa s sing IIRIR

A, C ongre ss antic ipate d tha

t pe titione rs would bea

ble to pursuere lie f a fte r de pa rting from

the Unite d State s.’ ” (quoting C

oy t v . Holde r , 593 F.3d 902, 906 (9th C ir. 2010)).

3Thus, a s in Re y e s -Torre s , pe titione rs’ prior re m ova l from the Unite d State s doe s not pre c lude the m

from e xe rc ising the ir sta

tutory right to filea

m otion to re ope n. II Ge ne ra lly , a

“ m o t ion to re ope n proc e e dings shal l not begrante d unle ss it a ppe ars to the B IA that e vide nc e sought to be offe re d is m ate ria l a

n d wa s not ava ila ble an d c ould not ha

ve be e n disc ove re d

or pre s e nte d at

the form e r he aring.” 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(1). An a l ie n who se e k s to re ope n re m ova l proc e e dings to pursue re lie f ba se d on c ha n ge d c ountry

c onditions m

ust c le ar “ four hurdle s” :

“ (1) he ha [s] to produc e e vide nc e tha t c onditions ha [ve ] c ha

nge d in [his c ountry

of nationa lity ] ; (2) the e v ide n c e ha [s] to be ‘ m ate ria l ;’ (3) the e vide nc e m ust not ha ve be e n av a i la

ble and would not ha

ve be e n disc o ve re d or pre se nte d at the pre vious proc e e ding; a

nd (4) he ha [s] to de m onstra te that the ne w e vide nc e , whe n c onside re d toge the r with thee vide nc e pre se nte d at the origina l he aring, would e sta blish prima

fa c ie e ligibility

for the re lie f sought.” Toufighi v . Muk ase y , 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th C ir.2008) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c ita t ion om itte d). Pe titione rs in this c a se subm itte d a sworn sta

te m e nt from

Lope z -Va sque z de sc ribing how, in 2006, he r a unt-in-la wwa s kidna

pe d a n d m urde re d by antigove rnm e nt gue rilla s for re fusing to disc lose the whe re a bouts of pe titione rs a

nd othe r re lative s. Lope z -Va s que z a sse rte d tha t the pe ople who m

urde re d he r a

unt-in4la

w we re the sa

m e pe ople who ha d ha

ra sse d he r and he r son be fore the y fle d Guate m a la

the first tim e . She a lso provide d a m unic ipa l de ath c e rtific ate a s furthe r e vide nc e of he r a

unt-in-la w’ s de ath. The B IA he ld tha

t pe titione rs’ e vide nc e wa s not suffic ie nt to e sta blish prima fa c i e e l igibility

for a sy lum . It c onc lude d tha t, “ [a ] s ide from [Lope z -Va sque z ] ’ s sta te m e nt, the re is no obje c tive e vide nc e tha t the re sponde nts would be ta rge te d on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground.” Howe ve r, the B IA wa s re quire d to a c c e pt the ne w fa c t s a l le g e d in Lope z -Va sque z ’ s de c la ration a s true unle s s it de te rm ine d tha t the y we re “ i nhe re ntly

unbe lie va

ble .” N a jmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th C ir. 2010). The B IA did not m ak e suc h a finding nor provide

any othe r re a sons for disre ga rding thefa c ts a lle ge d in thede c la ration. Ac c e pting those

fa c ts a s true , Lope z -Va sque z ’ s de c la ration offe rs suffic ie nt e vide nc e tha

t c onditions in Gua

te m a la have m ate ria lly

c ha nge d. The m

urde r of pe titione rs’ re lative – whic h oc c urre d a fte r the ir initia l a sy lum a p plic ation wa s de nie d – shows tha

t the anti-gove rnm e nt gue rilla s who ha d pre viously thre ate ne d m e m b e rs of pe titione rs’ fam ily are now willing to use

de a dly forc e to thre ate n a

nd ta rge t pe t itione rs the m s e lve s . W e have he ld tha t sim ila r e vide nc e of a

n inc re a se in the s e ve rity

of pe rse c ution fe are d m ay provide a le gitim ate ba sis for re ope ning re m ova l proc e e d ings ba se d on c ha n ge d c ountry

c o nditions. Se e DeSilv a v . 5Holde r , 2014 W L 4087901, a t *1 (9th C ir. Aug. 20, 2014) (gra nting pe tition for re vie w of the B IA’ s de nia l of a m otion to re ope n ba se d on pe titione r’ s sworn sta te m e nt tha

t, a fte r the de nia l of his first a s y lum a p plic ation, polic e -a ide d ga ngs m urde re d his brother ba s e d on the brothe r’ s im pute d politic a l opinion). B e c a use pe titione rs’ e vide nc e in this c a se is m ate ria l, wa s not pre viously ava ila b le , a nd is suffic i e nt to e sta

blish the ir prim a

fa c ie e ligibility

for a sy lum , pe titione rs ha ve c le are d the ne c e ssa

ry hurdle s to pre va il on the ir m otion to re ope n. PE T IT IO N G RANT E D.

6