IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60122

Summary Calendar

JAVIER ENRIQUE GUERRA PORTILLO; MARIELA JOSEFINA PARRA 

GARCIA; JONAS DAVID GUERRA PARRA; JEANVIER ENMANUEL 

GUERRA PARRA,

Petitioners

v.

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A087 352 525

BIA No. A087 352 526

BIA No. A087 352 527

BIA No. A087 352 528

Before BENAVIDES, HAYNES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Javier Enrique Guerra Portillo, along with his wife, Mariela Josefina 

Parra Garcia, and their two children, Jonas David Guerra Parra and Jeanvier 

Enmanuel Guerra Parra, petition this court for review of the decision of the 

 

* 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

January 18, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60122 Document: 00514801418 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/18/2019
No. 18-60122

2

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their motion to reopen. They 

argue that the BIA erred in concluding that they did not present new, material 

evidence showing that they would be singled out for persecution based on their 

Jehovah’s Witness religion and their political neutrality. They also argue that 

the BIA erred in concluding that they failed to make a prima facie showing of 

eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

Against Torture (CAT).

This court reviews the denial of a motion to reopen under the “highly 

deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 

337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The 

court will “uphold the decision if it ‘is not capricious, racially invidious, utterly 

without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is 

arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.’” Lowe 

v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 713, 715 (5th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). The court will 

affirm the BIA’s factual findings “unless the evidence ‘compels a contrary 

conclusion.’” Nunez v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 499, 505 (5th Cir. 2018) (citation 

omitted.)

A petitioner may file a motion to reopen beyond the 90-day limitations 

period if the motion is based on changed country conditions and the petitioner 

submits “new facts” supported by “material” evidence that was unavailable or 

undiscoverable at the prior proceeding. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1)-(3); 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). To establish changed country conditions, the petitioner 

must present evidence showing “a meaningful comparison” between conditions 

in his home country at the time of the motion to reopen versus the time of the 

removal hearing. Nunez, 882 F.3d at 508.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion 

to reopen. See Lugo-Resendez, 831 F.3d at 340. Although they submitted 

 Case: 18-60122 Document: 00514801418 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/18/2019
No. 18-60122

3

evidence concerning the political and economic turmoil in Venezuela, they did 

not present new, material evidence demonstrating that they would be 

individually singled out for persecution based on their Jehovah’s Witness

religion or their political neutrality. They did present evidence to support their 

claim that the Government had threatened to cut off food supplies to antigovernment protestors; however, this evidence did not establish that the 

Government had actually done so or that it would cut off food supplies to 

citizens who remained politically neutral. Other than his own affidavit, 

Guerra Portillo also did not present evidence or sources to support his 

allegation that the Government had implemented a system of providing 

identification documents only to its supporters, which are required to obtain 

food and medicine. While the petitioners argue that the BIA failed to consider 

the entire record, they did not identify any specific evidence in the record that 

directly supports their claim that they would be targeted because of their 

religious beliefs or their political neutrality. Because the BIA did not abuse its 

discretion in denying their motion to reopen, this court need not reach the 

petitioners’ claims concerning their eligibility for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. See Ramos-Lopez

v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 1024, 1026 (5th Cir. 2016); Ogbemudia v. INS, 988 F.2d 595,

601 (5th Cir. 1993).

Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

 

 Case: 18-60122 Document: 00514801418 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/18/2019