USCA11 Case: 21-11040 Date Filed: 01/03/2022 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-11040 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ DANIEL FERNANDEZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A074-692-058 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-11040 Date Filed: 01/03/2022 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 21-11040 Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Daniel Fernandez, a native and citizen of Cuba, seeks review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his second motion to reopen his removal order based on materially changed country conditions. Fernandez contends the BIA erred in finding he failed to provide evidence of a material change in cir- cumstances in Cuba, and instead presented evidence of a change in personal circumstances. After review, 1 we deny the petition. An alien generally may file one motion to reopen proceed- ings within 90 days of the date of an order of removal and must state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted and be supported by affidavits or other eviden- tiary material. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A)–(C)(i). However, there is no time limit on the filing of a motion to reopen to apply for asy- lum or withholding of removal based on “changed country condi- tions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the 1We review the denial of a motion to reopen an immigration proceeding for an abuse of discretion, under which we will only determine whether the BIA exercised its discretion arbitrarily or capriciously. Jiang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). USCA11 Case: 21-11040 Date Filed: 01/03/2022 Page: 3 of 6 21-11040 Opinion of the Court 3 previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). While an alien is generally limited to filing only one motion to reopen removal proceedings, the numerical limitation does not apply to a motion to reopen to apply or reapply for asylum or withholding of depor- tation based on changed circumstances arising in the country of na- tionality 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)(2), (c)(3)(ii). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Fernandez’s second motion to reopen. First, the BIA correctly concluded Fer- nandez’s second motion to reopen his removal proceedings was time and number barred. Fernandez filed the second motion to reopen approximately 15 years after his final order of removal, well beyond the 90-day limit, and had previously filed a motion to reo- pen his removal proceedings in 2010. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals