Edgar Bello-Naranjo sought to reopen his removal proceedings before the Board of Immigration Appeals. Under federal law, a motion to reopen must generally be filed within ninety days of the final removal order. However, an exception exists if the motion is based on changed country conditions. Bello-Naranjo argued that conditions in Colombia had worsened, specifically citing continued threats and extortion by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. He also contended that the BIA erred by not reopening the case sua sponte after the Department of Homeland Security failed to respond to his motion. The BIA denied the motion, and Bello-Naranjo petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review.
The panel unanimously concluded that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. To qualify for the changed country conditions exception to the ninety-day deadline, a petitioner must provide evidence that is material, previously unavailable, and demonstrates that circumstances have changed sufficiently to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. The court found that Bello-Naranjo's evidence regarding threats from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia largely corroborated claims already presented at his merits hearing. Citing Agonafer v. Sessions, the court noted that evidence recounting previous conditions or being voluminous but redundant is insufficient to show a change in country conditions. Consequently, the petitioner failed to show that the circumstances had changed enough to provide a legitimate claim for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture. Regarding the second issue, the court reiterated that it generally lacks jurisdiction to review a Board decision denying sua sponte reopening, except for legal or constitutional error. Since Bello-Naranjo did not allege any such errors, the court dismissed this claim for lack of jurisdiction.
The petition for review is denied, leaving the BIA's denial of the motion to reopen in place. The petitioner remains subject to the original removal order. The decision reinforces the strict evidentiary requirements for the changed country conditions exception, clarifying that evidence must show a significant shift in circumstances rather than merely reiterating past conditions. The ruling also confirms the Ninth Circuit's limited jurisdiction over sua sponte reopening denials, requiring a specific showing of legal or constitutional error to proceed.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download