Court Opinion

ID: 9389797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 15:00:58.860053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:29.613372
License: Public Domain

20-3782
     Alvarado Arce v. Garland
                                                                                BIA
                                                                    A205 616 779/780

                                UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                    FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

                                      SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION
TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED
AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS
COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT
FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX
OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A
PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

 1        At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
 2   for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
 3   United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
 4   New York, on the 26th day of April, two thousand twenty-
 5   three.
 6
 7   PRESENT:
 8            GUIDO CALABRESI,
 9            JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
10            JOSEPH F. BIANCO,
11                 Circuit Judges.
12   _____________________________________
13
14   ELVIS EUGENIO ALVARADO ARCE,
15   MANUELA MERCEDES PAUTA GUAMAN,
16            Petitioners,
17
18                     v.                                      20-3782
19                                                             NAC
20   MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
21   STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22            Respondent.
23   _____________________________________
24
25
26   FOR PETITIONERS:                      Perham Makabi, Esq., Kew Gardens,
27                                         NY.
28
 1   FOR RESPONDENT:                 Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant
 2                                   Attorney General; Anthony P.
 3                                   Nicastro, Assistant Director;
 4                                   Matthew B. George, Senior
 5                                   Litigation Counsel, Office of
 6                                   Immigration Litigation, United
 7                                   States Department of Justice,
 8                                   Washington, DC.

 9          UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a

10   Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby

11   ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review

12   is DENIED.

13          Petitioners     Elvis   Eugenio   Alvarado   Arce   and Manuela

14   Mercedes Pauta Guaman, natives and citizens of Ecuador, seek

15   review of an October 7, 2020, decision of the BIA denying

16   their motion to reopen.         In re Alvarado Arce, Pauta Guaman,

17   Nos. A205 616 779/780 (B.I.A. Oct. 7, 2020).           We assume the

18   parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural

19   history.

20          We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for

21   abuse of discretion, Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d

22   Cir.    2006),   and     country   conditions   determinations     for

23   substantial evidence, Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138,

24   168–69 (2d Cir. 2008).

                                         2
 1          It is undisputed that Petitioners motion to reopen was

 2   untimely and number barred because it was their second motion

 3   filed approximately three years after their removal order.

 4   See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A) (allowing one motion to reopen),

 5   (C)(i) (90-day deadline for motion to reopen); 8 C.F.R.

 6   § 1003.2(c)(2) (same).       There is an exception to these time

 7   and number limits if the motion is filed to seek asylum “based

 8   on changed country conditions arising in the country of

 9   nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered,

10   if such evidence is material and was not available and would

11   not    have   been    discovered   or   presented   at   the   previous

12   proceeding.”         8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8

13   C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

14          Petitioners sought reopening to apply for asylum based

15   on worsening violence against indigenous women in Ecuador.

16   “In determining whether evidence accompanying a motion to

17   reopen demonstrates a material change in country conditions

18   that    would   justify   reopening,     [the   BIA]   compare[s]   the

19   evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to

20   those that existed at the time of the merits hearing below.”

21   In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007).               The

                                         3
 1   BIA need not “expressly parse or refute on the record each

 2   individual argument or piece of evidence offered by the

 3   petitioner,”     so    long        as     it    has       “has    given     reasoned

 4   consideration to the petition, and made adequate findings.”

 5   Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir. 2006)

 6   (quotation marks and citation omitted).

 7        Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that

 8   petitioners     failed       to     establish         a    material       change     in

9    conditions in Ecuador.             Petitioners claimed that there had

10   been an “increase in violence against indigenous Ecuadorians”

11   with “at least one indigenous leader directly [] killed by

12   government security forces in 2019.”                      Petitioner’s Br. at 4–

13   5.   But their country conditions evidence did not reflect a

14   change.      They submitted two pieces of evidence, a 2019

15   article   reporting      on       protests      by        indigenous      women     and

16   concluding     that    “[f]or           the    Amazonian         women    and      many

17   indigenous people in Ecuador, this month’s protests only

18   highlight     what    they        call    years       of    repression      by     the

19   government,” Certified Administrative Record (“CAR”) at 148,

20   and the 2014 State Department report on human rights in

21   Ecuador, which provides that “[i]ndigenous groups continued

                                               4
 1   to challenge government decisions and laws” and “reported

 2   that government persecution continued against their members,”

 3   and “[i]ndigenous persons continued to suffer discrimination

 4   at many levels of society.” Id. at 186–87.              On this record,

 5   the BIA did not err in concluding that petitioners failed to

 6   establish a change in the level of violence against indigenous

 7   women since 2014.      See In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 253.

 8         Petitioners allege that the BIA did not fully analyze

 9   their claim of changed conditions.            But they raised their

10   changed conditions argument in a single paragraph in their

11   motion to reopen and did not present country conditions

12   evidence warranting further analysis.             See Wei Guang Wang,

13   437   F.3d    at   274–75    (concluding   that   BIA’s   one    sentence

14   analysis      of   changed    conditions    was   not     an    abuse   of

15   discretion).

16         For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is

17   DENIED.      All pending motions and applications are DENIED and

18   stays VACATED.

19                                     FOR THE COURT:
20                                     Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
21                                     Clerk of Court

                                         5