Opinion ID: 4538683
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Limited Scope of Review

Text: Before assessing whether Ba’s petition has merit, we must clarify the limited scope of our review, which requires some background on the statutory framework for motions to reopen. Generally, “a party may file only one motion to reopen [removal] proceedings (whether before the Board or the Immigration Judge) and that motion must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). But when an applicant applies or reapplies for asylum “based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or 10 No. 19-3859, Ba v. Barr presented at the previous hearing,” these time and numerical limitations do not apply. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). The question here is whether these limitations apply. In concluding that these limitations did apply to—and thus precluded—Ba’s motion to reopen, the BIA reasoned that he had failed to “address[] the adverse credibility findings of the Immigration Judge,” specifically with respect to his claims that he was Mauritanian and that he was a slave. A.R. at 3–4 (BIA Decision at 1–2). Because “the Board’s denial of relief may be affirmed only on the basis articulated in the decision and this Court may not assume that the Board considered factors that it failed to mention in its opinion,” Daneshvar v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 615, 626 (6th Cir. 2004), we review only what the BIA actually said in its order. See Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168–69 (1962) (“The courts may not accept appellate counsel’s post hoc rationalizations for agency action; [we] require[] that an agency’s discretionary order be upheld, if at all, on the same basis articulated in the order by the agency itself.”). The “basis articulated in the [BIA] decision,” in this case, was Ba’s failure to submit evidence “showing that he is a national and/or citizen of Mauritania,” A.R. at 4 (BIA Decision at 2 n.3), or otherwise rebutting the credibility finding of the IJ with respect to his prior asylum claims, id. at 1–2. Accordingly, we do not address whether Ba has made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief, as is required in motions to reopen, because the BIA did not address this requirement. Alizoti, 477 F.3d at 451–52 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)). Nor do we assess whether the voluminous evidence that Ba appended to his motion to reopen does, in fact, demonstrate a relevant change in country conditions and whether it was “not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), because the BIA has not yet had the opportunity to engage in this analysis. 11 No. 19-3859, Ba v. Barr