Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied Moises Alexander Prado-Majano’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings. The court held that the motion was untimely, that the evidence showed a change in personal circumstances rather than materially changed country conditions, and that equitable tolling was not warranted.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Board abused its discretion in determining that Prado-Majano's motion to reopen was untimely and did not qualify for the changed-country-conditions exception.
- Whether the Board abused its discretion by declining to equitably toll the 90-day deadline for filing the motion to reopen based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and other asserted obstacles.
- Whether the motion was subject to the statutory number bar.
Holdings
- The Board did not abuse its discretion in finding that Prado-Majano failed to establish materially changed country conditions warranting an exception to the 90-day time bar. His father-in-law's arrest and extradition showed a change in personal circumstances, and the country evidence showed at most incremental changes rather than a material nationwide change.
- The Board did not abuse its discretion in refusing to equitably toll the deadline because Prado-Majano did not show how alleged ineffective assistance of counsel prevented timely filing, and he submitted no relevant evidence supporting his additional tolling grounds.
- The court did not reach whether Prado-Majano's motion was barred by the statutory limit on the number of motions to reopen because the motion was independently barred by the 90-day time limit.
Key quotations
“When reviewing the Board’s denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings, the court applies a “highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.”” (4)
“For the changed country conditions exception to apply, the petitioner must make a “meaningful comparison between the conditions at the time of the removal hearing” and the conditions at the time he moves to reopen proceedings.” (6)
“The deadline to file a motion to reopen may be equitably tolled when the non-citizen establishes “(1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.”” (8)
Factual background
Prado-Majano, a Salvadoran national who entered the United States without admission or parole, sought asylum and other relief after being placed in removal proceedings. He alleged past forced MS-13 membership, torture and detention by Salvadoran authorities, and threats from gangs. After his counsel withdrew his application for relief and the IJ ordered removal to Mexico or, alternatively, El Salvador, Prado-Majano moved to reopen based on his father-in-law's arrest and extradition, asserting that the events increased his risk of torture in El Salvador. He also sought equitable tolling based on ineffective assistance of counsel, his pro se status, language difficulties, and related circumstances.
Procedural history
The Immigration Judge denied Prado-Majano's applications for relief and ordered his removal. After various appeals and motions to remand, the Board dismissed his appeal and denied his motion to remand. Prado-Majano later moved to reopen based on alleged changed country conditions and sought equitable tolling of the filing deadline; the Board denied the motion as untimely and declined equitable tolling. The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review.