Eber Rony Rodas De Leon v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 17-14557 Date Filed: 06/20/2018 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-14557 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A200-938-217 EBER RONY RODAS DE LEON, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (June 20, 2018) Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Eber Rony Rodas de Leon (“Rodas de Leon”) seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings so that he could apply for withholding of removal under the Case: 17-14557 Date Filed: 06/20/2018 Page: 2 of 5 Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Rodas de Leon argues that the BIA abused its discretion when it denied his motion to reopen on the ground that he failed to establish his prima facie eligibility for either form of relief. After thorough review, we deny the petition. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 443 F.3d 804, 808 (11th Cir. 2006). Our review “is limited to determining whether there has been an exercise of administrative discretion and whether the matter of exercise has been arbitrary or capricious.” Id. (quotations omitted). “Generally, [m]otions to reopen are disfavored, especially in a removal proceeding, where, as a general matter, every delay works to the advantage of the [removable] alien who wishes merely to remain in the United States.” Id. (quotations omitted). A motion to reopen “shall state the new facts that will be proven at a hearing to be held if the motion is granted, and shall be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(B); Verano-Velasco v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 456 F.3d 1372, 1376 (11th Cir. 2006). Motions to reopen may be granted if there is new evidence that is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the removal hearing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). To make such a showing, the alien bears a heavy burden, and must present evidence of such a nature that the BIA is satisfied that if proceedings before the IJ 2 Case: 17-14557 Date Filed: 06/20/2018 Page: 3 of 5 were reopened, with all attendant delays, the new evidence offered would likely change the result in the case. Ali, 443 F.3d at 813. The BIA may deny a motion to reopen if the alien fails to establish a prima facie case. Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262, 1302 (11th Cir. 2001). To be eligible for withholding of removal under the INA, an alien must show that his “life or freedom would be threatened in [the country of removal] because of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). The alien has the burden of proof, and must show that he or ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals