Saul Gabriel Sales-Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that denied his second motion to reconsider and his second motion to reopen removal proceedings. A final order of removal had been entered against him in April 2023. In July 2024, over a year later, Sales-Lopez filed his second motions to reconsider and reopen. He argued that his derivative status and the medical circumstances of his children warranted relief. The BIA denied these motions, finding them untimely and barred by the one-motion rule. Sales-Lopez then petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review, arguing that the proceedings were fundamentally unfair and that new events, including a second Notice to Appear, justified a remand.
The panel unanimously denied the petition, focusing on three primary legal barriers. First, the court applied the one-motion rule under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)-(c), which limits non-citizens to one motion to reconsider and one motion to reopen. Sales-Lopez's second motions were filed well past the 30-day and 90-day deadlines, respectively. The court rejected his attempt to bypass these bars, noting that exceptions require either changed country conditions or fundamental unfairness. Citing Rodriguez v. Garland, the court explained that a petitioner cannot succeed on a motion to reopen based solely on a change in personal circumstances without evidence of related changes in country conditions. Sales-Lopez offered no evidence that conditions in Guatemala had changed. Second, the court addressed the claim of fundamental unfairness. Sales-Lopez argued the BIA failed to consider his children's medical issues and his derivative status. The court held that the BIA did consider these arguments and is not required to write an 'exegesis on every contention.' Third, the court dismissed the argument that a second Notice to Appear and a request for the petitioner's wife's A-number justified remand. Citing Olivar v. INS, the court stated that new information discovered after finalization must be addressed via a motion to reopen, not a petition for review. Furthermore, the court found Sales-Lopez failed to meet the 'heavy burden' of proving that new evidence would likely change the outcome, especially since the BIA had already determined his derivative status did not warrant reopening.
The petition is dismissed without remand, leaving the final order of removal in effect. The stay of removal will dissolve upon issuance of the mandate. This decision reinforces the strict application of the one-motion rule and the requirement that motions to reopen must be supported by evidence of changed country conditions rather than personal circumstances alone. It also clarifies that post-finalization developments must be addressed through new motions to the BIA, not through petitions for review.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download