NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT __________ No. 20-1290 __________ WANDER PIRES-PAIVA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA __________ On Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A074-324-937) Immigration Judge: Ramin Rastegar __________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on September 17, 2020 Before: KRAUSE, RESTREPO, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges (Filed: September 18, 2020) __________ OPINION * __________ KRAUSE, Circuit Judge. Wander Pires-Paiva appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen based on changed country conditions or the BIA’s sua sponte author- ity. Because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Pires-Paiva did not submit evidence of changed country conditions and because Pires-Paiva has not carried his burden of demonstrating that we may review the BIA’s refusal to reopen sua sponte, we will deny the petition for review. I. DISCUSSION 1 Pires-Paiva urges that the BIA committed two errors: (1) declining to reopen based on evidence of changed country conditions; and (2) declining to reopen sua sponte. We consider each in turn. A. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to reopen based on changed country conditions. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion and will grant a petition for review on that basis only if the decision was “arbitrary, irrational, or * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. 1 The BIA had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(b) and 1240.15, and we exer- cise jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 2 contrary to law.” Liem v. Att’y Gen., 921 F.3d 388, 395 (3d Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). Generally, noncitizens may file only one motion to reopen and must do so within ninety days of the date of entry of the final order concluding the removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). But these time and number bars are relaxed when a petitioner moves “[t]o apply or reapply for asylum or withholding of de- portation based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). At that point, “the BIA has a heightened duty to explicitly consider any country conditions evidence submitted by an applicant that materially bears on his claim.” Liem, 921 F.3d at 395 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). But relief is available only if the petitioner presents evidence of materially changed country conditions since the time of his previous hearing. Id.; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Here, Pires-Paiva submitted no such evidence. He directs us to evidence of Rogerio Hamilton’s escalating aggression towards his family, but “application of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) cannot be based on ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals