Opinion ID: 2973426
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: We have jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to reopen. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a); Prekaj v. INS, 384 F.3d 265, 268 (6th Cir. 2004). “The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen . . . is within the discretion of the Board.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). Accordingly, we review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. Allabani v. Gonzales, 402 F.3d 668, 675 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 107-08 (1988)); Harchenko v. INS, 379 F.3d 405, 409 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992)). This standard requires us to “‘decide whether the denial of [the] motion to reopen . . . was made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis such as invidious discrimination against a particular race or group.’” Allabani, 402 F.3d at 675 (alterations in original) (quoting Balani v. INS, 669 F.2d 1157, 1161 (6th Cir. 1982)). We review de novo legal issues. Harchenko, 379 F.3d at 409.
An alien may usually file only one motion to reopen removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The motion typically must be filed within ninety days of the final administrative decision sought to be reopened. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The ninety-day deadline does not apply, however, if the motion to reopen is made in order to apply for asylum and “is based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered,” as long as such changes are “material and [were] not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (emphasis added); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) (using the phrase “changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered” (emphasis added)). The BIA’s decision denying Haddad’s motion to reopen proceeded in two steps. The Board first construed Haddad’s motion — which was based on the changed circumstance of her divorce — to come within the “changed circumstances” exception of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). The Board then rejected the motion because it was not filed within a reasonable time after the divorce. The BIA’s first step was erroneous; correction of the first step makes the second step unnecessary. Haddad’s divorce was a purely personal change in circumstances that does not constitute changed conditions or circumstances in Jordan. E.g., Zheng v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 416 F.3d 129, 130-31 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding that the alien’s wife’s arrival in the United States and her pregnancy were not changed circumstances under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii)); Guan v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals, 345 F.3d 47, 49 (2d Cir. 2003) (birth of children); Zhao v. Gonzales, No. 05-2398, 2005 WL 3408040, at  (7th Cir. Dec. 13, 2005) (unpublished order) (birth of children); Rahro v. Gonzales, 150 F. App’x 727, 727-28 (9th Cir. 2005) (unpublished memorandum) (marriage); Zou v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 141 F. App’x 885, 887-88 (11th Cir. 2005) (unpublished opinion) (marriage and wife’s pregnancy); Kandio v. Gonzales, 132 F. App’x 851, 854 (1st Cir. 2005) (unpublished opinion) (death of parents). Without a showing of changed country conditions, Haddad was subject to the ninety-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen. Because it was filed on August 17, 2004, more than twenty months after the BIA’s December 10, 2002 affirmance of the IJ’s decision, Haddad’s motion to reopen was untimely. Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion.