Court Opinion

ID: 9955300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 00:00:45.412178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:25.918237
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60238            Document: 61-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                 Fifth Circuit

                                   ____________                                FILED
                                                                         March 27, 2024
                                    No. 23-60238                          Lyle W. Cayce
                                  Summary Calendar                             Clerk
                                  ____________

Maritza Marlene Escalon-Padilla; Cristian Enrique
Pavon-Escalon,

                                                                               Petitioners,

                                          versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.
                   ______________________________

                      Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals
                           Agency Nos. A206 496 525,
                                   A206 496 526
                   ______________________________

Before Jones, Smith, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
       Maritza Marlene Escalon-Padilla and Cristian Enrique Pavon-
Escalon, natives and citizens of Honduras, petition for review of the decision
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their motions for
reconsideration and reopening.            The BIA’s denial of such motions is

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60238         Document: 61-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/27/2024

                                  No. 23-60238

reviewed under “a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Singh
v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
         The motion for reconsideration pertained to the issue of whether
Escalon-Padilla’s application for asylum and withholding of removal before
the immigration judge (IJ) raised a particular social group that was
cognizable. Because the BIA’s decision upholding the denial of asylum and
withholding of removal relied on the IJ’s finding on the separate, dispositive
issue of nexus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for
reconsideration on the merits. See Singh, 436 F.3d at 487; see also Gonzales-
Veliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2019) (recognizing that a showing
of nexus is required for eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal).
Accordingly, we need not consider the petitioners’ argument challenging the
BIA’s alternative ruling that the motion was untimely.             See INS v.
Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).
         The petitioners also fail to show an abuse of discretion with regard to
the denial of their motion to reopen. “A motion to reopen proceedings shall
not be granted unless it appears to the Board that evidence sought to be
offered is material and was not available and could not have been discovered
or presented at the former hearing . . . .” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). To qualify
as “material,” the evidence “must be likely to change the result of the alien’s
underlying claim for relief.” Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904, 912 (5th Cir.
2019).
         While the petitioners contend that the BIA should have treated their
motion to reopen as a motion to remand, our precedent provides that the
same standard would apply to a motion for remand. See Suate-Orellana v.
Barr, 979 F.3d 1056, 1062 (5th Cir. 2020); Milat v. Holder, 755 F.3d 354, 365
(5th Cir. 2014). Thus, the petitioners have not shown that the BIA abused

                                        2
Case: 23-60238       Document: 61-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 03/27/2024

                                 No. 23-60238

its discretion in denying the motion on the ground that the psychological
evidence offered was not newly available evidence that could not have been
discovered previously. See Singh, 436 F.3d at 487.
       The petitioners’ argument regarding the materiality of the
psychological evidence also is unavailing. While the IJ decided not to credit
Escalon-Padilla’s testimony as it related to the timing of her past
relationships and the general chronology of her story, the IJ found that she
generally was a credible witness and credited her testimony about the core
aspects of her claim. Any rehabilitation of her credibility regarding dates or
chronology would not have changed the result on the issue of nexus, which
concerns why the alleged persecutors acted rather than when they acted.
Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that the petitioners
failed to show that the psychological evidence offered would likely change the
outcome of the case. See Singh, 436 F.3d at 487; Qorane, 919 F.3d at 912.
       The petition for review is DENIED.

                                      3