Case: 21-60921 Document: 00516577538 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/14/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 21-60921 FILED December 14, 2022 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Armando Matadi, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A216 540 427 Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Armando Matadi, a native and citizen of Angola, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motions to reopen his removal proceedings and to reconsider its prior decision affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum, withholding of * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-60921 Document: 00516577538 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/14/2022 No. 21-60921 removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He has also filed a motion to supplement the administrative record and to remand. This court reviews the denial of both a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider “under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Lowe v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 713, 715 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As long as the BIA’s decision “is not capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach,” it will be upheld. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence and its rulings of law are reviewed de novo. Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 2009). The substantial evidence test “requires only that the BIA’s decision be supported by record evidence and be substantially reasonable.” Omagah v. Ashcroft, 288 F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir. 2002). This court will not reverse the BIA’s factual findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Gomez-Palacios, 560 F.3d at 358. Matadi argues that the BIA erred in determining that the State Department’s 2019 International Religious Freedom Report for Angola was insufficient to support reopening based on changed country conditions. He focuses on the fact that the State Department report reflects an increase in church closures by the Angolan government as compared to 2018. As Matadi acknowledges, however, the 2019 report also states that some of the churches later received authorization to reopen. In any event, incremental changes in country conditions are insufficient to warrant reopening. Nunez v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 499, 508-09 (5th Cir. 2018). As such, the BIA reasonably determined that the religious freedom report did not show material changes 2 Case: 21-60921 Document: 00516577538 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/14/2022 No. 21-60921 in Angola’s country conditions that would warrant reopening of the removal proceedings. See Omagah, 288 F.3d at 258. Next, Matadi argues that the BIA erred in finding that the “new” …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals