LOPEZ VASQUEZ v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-04-19No. No. 19-73063

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied, and the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to deny Lopez's motion to reopen removal proceedings is affirmed.

Dimas Rogelio Lopez-Vasquez, a Guatemalan national, sought to reopen his removal proceedings before the Board of Immigration Appeals. He presented two arguments: first, that country conditions in Guatemala had materially changed based on reports of murders of indigenous rights group members, and second, that he should be allowed to apply for cancellation of removal. The court found both arguments lacking in the required legal support.

Regarding changed country conditions, Lopez failed to provide a meaningful comparison between conditions at the time of his original hearing and the current conditions, which is necessary to establish a material change. Additionally, he did not claim membership in an indigenous rights group, so even if conditions had changed, the new evidence would not support his eligibility for relief. On the cancellation of removal claim, Lopez made only conclusory statements about hardship without providing sufficient evidence. While he submitted medical documents for his children, they were from 2012 and he offered no explanation of how his removal would actually impact their medical care or qualify as the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship required by law.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether country conditions in Guatemala materially changed to support reopening removal proceedings
Whether new evidence of changed conditions is material when the applicant does not claim membership in the affected group
Whether conclusory assertions about hardship, without supporting evidence, satisfy the cancellation of removal standard

Procedural posture

Lopez petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Dimas Rogelio Lopez-Vasquez (“Lopez”), a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and we deny the petition for review.

Lopez first moved the BIA to reopen his removal proceedings on the ground that country conditions in Guatemala had materially changed. Specifically, Lopez cited evidence that members of indigenous rights groups have recently been murdered. This evidence alone cannot establish materially changed conditions because Lopez did not also provide evidence from the time of his original claim to be used as a comparison. See Salim v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]he changed country conditions exception is concerned with two points in time: the circumstances of the country at the time of the petitioners previous hearing, and those at the time of the motion to reopen.”). Even assuming changed conditions, Lopez has not shown that this evidence is material to his eligibility for relief because he does not claim to be a member of any indigenous rights group. See Agonafer v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1204 (9th Cir. 2017) (petitioner must establish that any new evidence is material and that it establishes prima facie eligibility for relief).

Lopez also moved the BIA to reopen his removal proceedings to allow him to apply for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). This motion was properly denied because Lopez did not provide evidence of prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. Cancellation of removal requires a showing that removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). Lopezs motion did not meet this standard. He only asserted in a conclusory fashion that his removal would cause such a hardship, but he did not provide evidence or an explanation of why this is so. Lopez did provide medical documents for his children, but the documents are from 2012 and Lopez did not offer evidence showing how his absence would affect his childrens ability to receive medical care.

For these reasons, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopezs motion to reopen. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016).

PETITION DENIED.