CORRECTED

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60687

Summary Calendar 

CARLOS JAVIER LARIOS-GIRON, 

Petitioner 

v. 

DANA BOENTE, ACTING U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

Respondent 

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals 

BIA No. A200 000 677

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Carlos Javier Larios-Giron, a native and citizen of Guatemala, was 

ordered removed in absentia after failing to appear at his removal hearing. 

The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his motion to reopen and a later motion to 

reconsider the denial of reopening. He now petitions for review of the decision 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the denial 

 

* 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 31, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
No. 15-60687

2 

of his motion to reconsider. He argues that he was not served with the Notice 

to Appear (NTA); was never asked to provide his address; was never informed 

that he was in removal proceedings; and was never warned of the consequences 

of failing to appear at the removal hearing. He contends that this lack of notice 

resulted in a violation of his due process rights. 

The NTA, which contained Larios-Giron’s signature and fingerprint, 

advised him of the obligation of providing his mailing address. The NTA stated 

that it was served in person and that the alien was provided oral notice in 

Spanish that the time and date for the removal hearing would be set later and 

the consequences of failing to appear. Thus, the record reflects that LariosGiron was personally served with the NTA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a). The 

NTA also reflects that Larios-Giron failed to provide his address. This was a 

proper basis to deny reopening the removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229a(b)(5)(B); Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 360-61 (5th Cir. 

2009). Larios-Giron has shown no abuse of discretion. Singh v. Gonzales, 436 

F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2006). Larios-Giron’s due process argument is without 

merit. See Gomez-Palacios, 560 F.3d at 361 n.2.

 Larios-Giron also argues that the BIA erred because he showed changed 

country conditions and, as a result, he was entitled to have his removal 

proceedings reopened. To determine whether there has been a material change 

in country conditions, the evidence of country conditions submitted with the 

motion to reopen is compared to those conditions that existed at the time of the 

removal hearing. See Panjwani v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 626, 632-33 (5th Cir. 

2005). Larios-Giron’s fear of gangs when he left Guatemala was the same fear 

he had at the time the motion to reopen was filed. Although he attempts to 

argue that police corruption is a changed country condition, this argument is 

without merit. Larios-Giron previously admitted that the police “did nothing” 
No. 15-60687

3 

in order to protect him and his family from the gang when he lived in 

Guatemala and the police “did nothing” to help his family even after he left. As 

a result, Larios-Giron has failed to show that the BIA’s denial of the motion to 

reconsider regarding this issue was an abuse of discretion. See Panjwani, 401 

F.3d at 632-33. Based on the foregoing, we need not reach Larios-Giron’s 

remaining arguments regarding whether he established prima facie eligibility 

for relief from removal. See id. 

 Larios-Giron’s petition for review is DENIED.