United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit 

No. 14-1431 

MICHAEL MAZARIEGOS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,*

Respondent. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF 

THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS 

Before 

Lynch, Selya, and Thompson, 

Circuit Judges. 

William E. Graves on brief for petitioner. 

Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration 

Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, 

Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Anthony W. 

Norwood, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for respondent. 

June 24, 2015 

 

* Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Attorney General Loretta E. 

Lynch has been substituted for former Attorney General Eric H. 

Holder, Jr. as the respondent. 
- 2 - 

THOMPSON, Circuit Judge. Placed in removal proceedings 

after his arrest on state charges, Michael Jonathan Mazariegos 

sought to forestall his removal based on his marriage to a United 

States citizen and the hardship his removal would cause his family. 

He prevailed before an immigration judge (IJ), but lost when the 

government appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). 

Mazariegos did not seek review of that decision, but later 

petitioned the BIA to reopen the proceedings based on new evidence. 

The BIA denied the motion and Mazariegos petitions this court for 

review of that decision. After careful consideration, we deny the 

petition. 

BACKGROUND 

A. Arrival and Arrest 

Mazariegos is a native and citizen of Guatemala who has 

lived in the United States since he was two years old, when he and 

his family entered on visitor visas.1 In March 2008, at the age 

of nineteen, Mazariegos married a United States citizen, Lludelina 

Garcia, becoming a stepfather to her daughter. In light of the 

marriage, Mazariegos was approved a few months later for an I-130 

immigrant visa petition. He applied for adjustment of status on 

the basis of the approved I-130. 

 

1 His parents are now lawful permanent residents, and his brother 

is a United States citizen. 
- 3 - 

The Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") denied his 

application due to a pending criminal case. That case stemmed 

from an October 2008 arrest that resulted in charges of receiving 

stolen property and failure to stop for police in violation of 

Massachusetts law. According to the police report, Mazariegos was 

driving a Cadillac when a police officer attempted to pull him 

over. Instead of stopping, Mazariegos accelerated through a red 

light and continued driving. As the car approached a wooded area, 

it stopped suddenly, and Mazariegos and his passenger jumped out 

of the car and began to run. The officer apprehended both, at 

which time he observed that a window of the car was smashed out 

and that a car dealership invoice was visible. Mazariegos admitted 

sufficient facts to support a finding of guilt and the case was 

continued without a finding to October 2010. 

B. Removal Proceedings 

Meanwhile, in July 2009, DHS issued a Notice to Appear 

and placed Mazariegos in removal proceedings, charging him with 

removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) since he had remained 

in the United States longer than permitted and overstayed his 

visitor visa. Mazariegos, represented by counsel, appeared before 

the IJ where he admitted the factual allegations in the notice and 

conceded removability. Seeking relief from removal, he renewed 

his application for adjustment of status based on the approved I130. Because his convictions rendered him inadmissible to the 
- 4 - 

United States, and therefore ineligible for adjustment of status 

under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a), Mazariegos also applied for a waiver 

under section 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, id. 

§ 1182(h)(1)(B), claiming hardship to his lawfully admitted 

parents and citizen wife and step-daughter. 

The IJ held a merits hearing. Mazariegos and his mother 

both testified, but his wife, who was estranged from Mazariegos at 

the time, did not. Mazariegos testified that he lived with his 

parents, had dropped out of high school at age sixteen and began 

working at his parents' auto body shop, and he now served as 

general manager of the shop and handled matters that required 

fluency in English. He has no memory of Guatemala and has not 

returned since his arrival to the United States at age two. 

Mazariegos also described his criminal history. In 

2000, when he was eleven, he unknowingly got into a stolen car. 

He was charged as a juvenile with receiving stolen property and, 

on his lawyer's advice, admitted responsibility for the offense. 

In 2004, at age fifteen, he was charged as a juvenile with rape, 

kidnapping, and indecent assault and battery on a child under 

fourteen. The charges were dismissed, and Mazariegos testified 

that he did not commit the crimes with which he was charged. In 

2006, when he was seventeen, he was charged with driving without 

a license and without insurance, to which he pleaded guilty. 

Finally, in October 2008, at the age of nineteen, Mazariegos was 
- 5 - 

charged with receiving stolen property and failure to stop for 

police, as noted earlier. 

 Mazariegos's mother also testified at the hearing. She 

indicated that she had moved to the United States in 1993, after 

her father was killed in Guatemala. She explained that 

Mazariegos's removal would cause hardship to her and her husband 

because Mazariegos functioned as the car repair shop's general 

manager and took "care of almost everything," and the removal would 

be "really difficult" for her personally. 

At the end of the hearing, the IJ issued an oral 

decision, holding that a favorable exercise of discretion was 

warranted and granting Mazariegos's waiver and adjustment of 

status applications. The IJ emphasized the extreme hardship 

Mazariegos's removal would cause his parents2 and Mazariegos's 

positive equities: he was a longtime resident, an "intelligent and 

articulate young man," active in his family business, not a user 

of drugs and alcohol, and a responsible husband and stepfather. 

While the IJ did take into account his lengthy criminal history, 

the judge attributed much of this to "youthful indiscretions and 

lack of judgment" and found that Mazariegos had learned from his 

mistakes.

 

2 The IJ did not consider the impact on Mazariegos's wife as she 

did not testify. 
- 6 - 

C. Appeal to the BIA

Not happy with the decision, DHS appealed to the BIA, 

arguing that the IJ erred in exercising discretion to grant both 

the adjustment of status and waiver applications. The BIA agreed. 

It concluded that though it did not find any of the IJ's factual 

findings clearly erroneous, Mazariegos was not entitled to a 

discretionary section 212(h) waiver. Although the BIA thought 

this was a "close case," it identified Mazariegos's "ongoing 

pattern of criminal behavior" as the "principal reason" for the 

denial. Mazariegos did not petition this court for review of the 

BIA's decision.3

D. Motion to Reopen 

A few months later, Mazariegos (with new counsel) filed 

a motion with the BIA seeking to reopen his removal proceedings in 

light of two new pieces of evidence.4

 

3 Mazariegos may have fared better had he sought review at this 

point rather than following a motion to reopen denial, and we are 

not unsympathetic to the difficult place he finds himself in. In 

its brief, the government indicates that it is in the process of 

determining whether this case is affected by any of the President's 

November 20, 2014 immigration-related executive actions and we 

would encourage it to expeditiously make that determination, if it 

has not done so already. 

4 Mazariegos asked the BIA to reopen the matter sua sponte. 

Typically, we would lack jurisdiction over the BIA's disposition 

of such a motion. Charuc v. Holder, 737 F.3d 113, 115 (1st Cir. 

2013) ("[I]t is settled beyond hope of contradiction that the 

decision whether to exercise this sua sponte authority [to reopen] 

is committed to the unbridled discretion of the BIA, and the courts 

lack jurisdiction to review that judgment." (internal quotation 
- 7 - 

First, Mazariegos presented an affidavit from his wife, 

Lludelina Garcia, who had declined to testify during the removal 

proceedings. In it, Garcia indicated that she and Mazariegos had 

reconciled, that he provided financial and emotional support for 

her and her daughter, that she regretted not attending the merits 

hearing, and that she was now willing to testify in support of his 

section 212(h) waiver. 

Second, Mazariegos included an affidavit from his former 

attorney. In it, the attorney stated that he failed to advise 

Mazariegos that withholding of removal was an option and, in 

retrospect, that was a mistake. Mazariegos then included a Form 

I-589 application for withholding of removal, asylum, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), citing as 

grounds for relief the fact that a group of policemen in Guatemala 

killed his grandfather and other family members, and threatened 

his mother, forcing her to flee to the United States. Mazariegos 

indicated that since the policemen were never caught, he would 

fear for his life in Guatemala. 

 

marks omitted)). However, though Mazariegos asked for sua sponte 

relief, apparently thinking his motion untimely, the court deemed 

the motion timely filed because the BIA's mailing address had 

recently changed and "mail operations were modified to accommodate 

that change." As a result, the BIA decided the motion as if it 

were promptly filed, obviating the need for it to exercise sua 

sponte powers. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (providing that one 

motion to reopen removal proceedings may be filed no later than 

ninety days after the final administrative decision). 
- 8 - 

Based on the above evidence, Mazariegos asked the BIA to 

reopen proceedings and remand the case to the IJ. DHS opposed the 

motion.

The BIA sided with the government, issuing a written 

decision a few months later denying the motion to reopen. While 

the BIA acknowledged that Mazariegos's wife and stepchild were 

qualifying relatives for purposes of the section 212(h) waiver 

application, it was "not persuaded by the evidence before [it] 

that [Mazariegos] merits the 212(h) waiver as a matter of 

discretion in light of his criminal history." With respect to the 

withholding of removal basis for reopening, the BIA held that the 

"record and motion . . . lack evidence of conditions in Guatemala 

to support reopening for asylum, withholding of removal, or 

protection under the Convention Against Torture." And though 

Mazariegos had submitted an affidavit from his former attorney, 

the BIA concluded that he had not complied with the procedural 

requirements for raising an ineffective assistance of counsel 

claim under the controlling case, Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. 

Dec. 637, 639 (BIA 1988), and in any event, did not show prejudice 

as a result of his attorney's alleged error, since he did not 

establish a prima facie case for withholding of removal. The BIA 

concluded by noting that Mazariegos's motion also did not warrant 

the court sua sponte reopening this matter as he did not 
- 9 - 

"demonstrate that an exceptional situation is present . . . 

especially in light of the negative discretionary factors." 

Mazariegos petitioned this court for review of the BIA's 

decision. 

JURISDICTION 

 We start with a bone of contention. The government 

claims we lack jurisdiction to review (what it calls) a purely 

discretionary denial of a motion to reopen. The government misses 

the mark. 

The law it cites indeed provides that courts cannot 

review the discretionary component of the Attorney General's 

section 212(h) waiver decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) (providing 

that "[n]o court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision of 

the Attorney General to grant or deny a waiver under this 

subsection"); id. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (barring review of "any 

judgment regarding the granting of relief" under section 1182(h), 

among others). However, we are not being asked to decide the 

propriety of a decision to grant or deny the waiver. Recall, 

Mazariegos never sought review of that decision. Rather, we are 

considering whether the BIA erred in not reopening the proceedings, 

a determination we do have jurisdiction over. See Mata v. Lynch, 

___ S. Ct. ___, 2015 WL 2473335, at *4 (June 15, 2015) ("[C]ircuit 

courts have jurisdiction when an alien appeals from the Board's 

denial of a motion to reopen a removal proceeding."); Neves v. 
- 10 - 

Holder, 613 F.3d 30, 33 (1st Cir. 2010) (per curiam) ("[D]ecisions 

on motions to reopen proceedings, like other proceedings made 

discretionary by regulation and not by statute, are generally 

subject to judicial review." (citing Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 

233, 237, 253 (2010))). And that grant of jurisdiction does not 

change simply because the BIA found that Mazariegos would not be 

entitled, as a matter of discretion, to the relief he sought. See 

Mata, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2015 WL 2473335, at *4 ("Under the INA, as 

under our century-old practice, the reason for the BIA's denial 

makes no difference to the jurisdictional issue."). 

With that resolved, we proceed to the merits. 

DISCUSSION

Because a motion to reopen removal proceedings is a 

disfavored tool, given the threat it poses to finality, the BIA 

has a fair amount of latitude to grant or deny the motion and our 

review is for abuse of discretion only. Perez v. Holder, 740 F.3d 

57, 61 (1st Cir. 2014). Essentially, the decision stands unless 

the petitioner "can show that the BIA committed an error of law or 

exercised its judgment in an arbitrary, capricious, or irrational 

way." Raza v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 125, 127 (1st Cir. 2007). 

In order to establish eligibility for reopening, the 

petitioner "must both introduce new, material evidence that was 

not available or discoverable at the prior hearing and must also 

present a prima facie case of eligibility for the relief sought." 
- 11 - 

Jutus v. Holder, 723 F.3d 105, 110 (1st Cir. 2013); see 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229a(c)(7)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). 

Mazariegos claims two new pieces of evidence warranted 

the BIA reopening his removal proceedings. First, he points us to 

the affidavit from his wife submitted in support of a section 

212(h) waiver and, second, to his application for asylum and 

withholding of removal, along with the attendant attorney 

affidavit explaining his failure to seek this relief earlier.5 

A. Section 212(h) Waiver 

Since a noncitizen seeking adjustment of status must, 

among other things, be admissible to the United States, Mazariegos 

has a problem. 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a). His convictions for crimes of 

moral turpitude render him inadmissible. See id. § 

1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I). Therefore, he must turn to section 212(h), 

which provides for a discretionary waiver of inadmissibility when 

a noncitizen can show extreme hardship to a qualifying relative, 

e.g., a United States citizen or lawfully resident spouse, parent, 

or child. Id. § 1182(h)(1)(B). 

 

5 Mazariegos does not pursue his ineffective assistance of counsel 

claim before this court and, so, this is the last time we mention 

it. One more thing we need not delve into is Mazariegos's quick 

invocation of the Due Process Clause at the close of his brief. 

His claim that denial of the motion to reopen violated his right 

to due process is unaccompanied by any developed argument or legal 

support. See González-Morales v. Hernández-Arencibia, 221 F.3d 

45, 48 n.3 (1st Cir. 2000) (failure to develop an argument waives 

it). 
- 12 - 

As we said, Mazariegos sought to secure this waiver by 

introducing an affidavit from his formerly estranged wife, which 

set forth the impact his removal would have on her and her 

daughter. The BIA, for its part, "acknowledge[d] that in addition 

to his parents, who are lawful permanent residents, the 

respondent's wife and his step child are qualifying relatives for 

the purposes of the waiver." Nonetheless, it was "not persuaded 

by the evidence before us that respondent merits the section 212(h) 

waiver as a matter of discretion in light of his criminal history." 

Mazariegos faults this approach. His primary argument to this 

court is that the BIA gave him short shrift by not delving into 

the hardship his wife and stepdaughter would face, likening it to 

an error of law and an abuse of discretion. But the BIA's course 

is an acceptable one. 

The BIA acknowledged both the existence of the affidavit 

and its relevance to the waiver application but it nevertheless 

concluded that reopening was not warranted because, in light of 

Mazariegos's criminal history, the new evidence would not change 

his entitlement to the relief requested. This is a permissible 

basis for denial. The BIA may deny a motion to reopen where it 

determines that "the movant would not be entitled to the 

discretionary grant of relief which he sought," even assuming he 

had established a prima facie case for the relief and introduced 

previously unavailable, material evidence. INS v. Doherty, 502 
- 13 - 

U.S. 314, 323 (1992); see also Mariko v. Holder, 632 F.3d 1, 7 

(1st Cir. 2011) (applying Doherty); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) ("The 

Board has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party 

moving has made out a prima facie case for relief."). Although 

the BIA's analysis was brief, all that is required is that it 

"fairly considers the points raised by the complainant and 

articulates its decision in terms adequate to allow a reviewing 

court to conclude that the agency has thought about the evidence 

and the issues and reached a reasoned conclusion." Raza, 484 F.3d 

at 128. Its treatment here satisfies this standard. 

The remainder of Mazariegos's arguments get him no 

further. Though he explicitly recognizes that the only decision 

before this court is the denial of the motion to reopen, Mazariegos 

devotes a good amount of attention to the BIA's initial adjustment 

of status and waiver denial. For one, he criticizes the BIA for 

not addressing whether removal would result in extreme hardship to 

his parents, since it denied the request in the exercise of 

discretion. However, that decision is not before us. Mazariegos 

never petitioned for its review, and arguing that the BIA's initial 

treatment of hardship laid a "faulty foundation" for its later 

denial of his motion to reopen is not enough to bring the initial 

decision within our purview.

Similarly misguided is his theory that the BIA 

impermissibly treated him more harshly than a waiver applicant 
- 14 - 

convicted of a violent or dangerous crime because he was 

"pretermitted by the Board from showing any hardship at all," 

whereas applicants convicted of violent or dangerous crimes can 

prevail in their waiver applications so long as they make a 

heightened showing of hardship. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 212.7(d); 

1212.7(d). Again, Mazariegos's focus is off, to say nothing of 

the merits of the position. The regulations cited by Mazariegos 

pertain to the Attorney General's decision to grant a 212(h) 

waiver, in other words, not the target of this petition for review 

of the denial of the motion to reopen. 

The same goes for Mazariegos's argument that the BIA 

misinterpreted his criminal history by failing to conduct an 

analysis of whether his juvenile offenses constituted crimes. It 

goes beyond the scope of this petition. The BIA's delineation of 

Mazariegos's criminal history was made in the initial adjustment 

of status and waiver denial, not in denying the motion to reopen. 

There is no need to go further. That ends this aspect 

of the case. 

B. Asylum and Withholding of Removal 

Mazariegos's other claimed basis for reopening was his 

newly submitted I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of 

Removal, a form of recourse he claims bad lawyering precluded him 

from seeking earlier. In it, he sought asylum and/or withholding 
- 15 - 

of removal based on the CAT.6 As grounds for relief, he indicated 

that police officers in Guatemala had killed his grandfather, his 

grandfather's sister, and his grandfather's nephew, the latter two 

"because they were family members" of his grandfather. He also 

stated that his mother started getting threatening phone calls 

around this time, which prompted her to emigrate to the United 

States. Mazariegos stated: "These police men were never captured. 

Since I am a family member too, I fear they would threat [sic] me 

or use me as a way to threaten my family. I would fear for my 

life if I ever return to my home country." 

By his own admission, Mazariegos's application was 

"skeletal," nonetheless he claims that when one considers the 

totality of the evidence, including the conditions in Guatemala, 

he established a prima facie case for removal. To be clear, 

Mazariegos provided no evidence of the current conditions in 

Guatemala, which is why the BIA denied the motion to reopen. But 

Mazariegos calls this error, contending the BIA should have taken 

administrative notice of the country conditions.7 We disagree on 

all counts. 

 

6 The form also included options for asylum or withholding of 

removal on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political 

opinion, or membership in a particular social group, but Mazariegos 

did not select any of these. 

7 Specifically, Mazariegos cites the State Department's 2013 

Country Conditions Report on Guatemala, which, among other things, 

references police corruption and police involvement in crimes. 
- 16 - 

CAT relief requires the applicant to prove that it is 

more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to his 

home country. Romilus v. Ashcroft, 385 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2004); 

8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). To establish a prima facie claim, "an 

applicant must offer specific objective evidence showing that he 

will be subject to: (1) an act causing severe physical or mental 

pain or suffering; (2) intentionally inflicted; (3) for a 

proscribed purpose; (4) by or at the instigation of or with the 

consent or acquiescence of a public official who has custody or 

physical control of the victim; and (5) not arising from lawful 

sanctions." Romilus, 385 F.3d at 8 (internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

Aside from the statements in his I-589, Mazariegos did 

not -- despite the form's instructions to do so -- provide any 

specific facts to support his claim (e.g., where and when his 

grandfather was killed), attach any documentary evidence to 

bolster his contentions (e.g., affidavits from family members), or 

include any evidence of the conditions in Guatemala (e.g., a 

country conditions report).8 Nor did he attempt to explain the 

 

8 The instructions provide: "To the best of your ability, provide 

specific dates, places, and descriptions about each event or action 

described. You must attach documents evidencing the general 

conditions in the country from which you are seeking asylum or 

other protection and the specific facts on which you are relying 

to support your claim. If this documentation is unavailable or 

you are not providing this documentation with your application, 

explain why in your responses to the following question." 
- 17 - 

absence of the required documents, again in violation of the form's 

dictate. 

Furthermore, while the BIA could have taken 

administrative notice of the conditions in Guatemala, it was not 

required to do so. See Yang Zhao-Cheng v. Holder, 721 F.3d 25, 28 

(1st Cir. 2013) ("[A]lthough the BIA is empowered to take 

administrative notice of commonly known facts such as current 

events or the contents of official documents, it is not compelled 

to do so.") (internal quotation marks omitted). On the contrary, 

the burden of providing evidence to support both a motion to reopen 

and a CAT claim lies squarely on the applicant. See 8 C.F.R. § 

1003.2(c)(1) ("A motion to reopen proceedings . . . shall be 

supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material."); id. § 

1208.16(c)(2) ("The burden of proof is on the applicant for 

withholding of removal under this paragraph to establish that it 

is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed 

to the proposed country of removal.").

Mazariegos did previously submit to the IJ copies of his 

grandfather's death certificate and a newspaper article about his 

grandfather's death, which he draws our attention to now. But 

Mazariegos does not explain how these documents, relating to a now 

twenty-five year old murder, prove that it is "more likely than 

not" that he would be tortured upon return to Guatemala. Romilus, 

385 F.3d at 8. In fact, it is unclear whether the documents 
- 18 - 

Mazariegos touts even support his contention that his grandfather 

died at the hands of corrupt police. In the article, Mazariegos's 

grandmother reported that her husband had been killed by "phantom 

assassins" that had been terrorizing the area. And the testimony 

of his mother before the IJ, which Mazariegos also points us to, 

indicates that "some men" killed her father and that she left 

Guatemala, not because of threatening phone calls, but because she 

was understandably depressed after her father's death and wanted 

to start fresh. 

To sum things up: Mazariegos failed to offer any 

documentary evidence in support of his application for CAT relief, 

including any evidence of the conditions in Guatemala, and the 

probative value of the modest amount of evidence submitted to the 

IJ is questionable. We do not think the BIA abused its discretion 

in deciding that this barebones showing was not enough to establish 

a prima facie case of entitlement to relief. Left without that 

crucial prima facie case, the BIA correctly concluded that 

reopening was not warranted. See Jutus, 723 F.3d at 110 (providing 

that, to justify reopening, the petitioner "must both introduce 

new, material evidence that was not available or discoverable at 

the prior hearing and must also present a prima facie case of 

eligibility for the relief sought"). 
- 19 - 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons laid out above, the BIA's denial of the 

motion to reopen was not an abuse of discretion. We deny the 

petition for review.