NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 20a0158n.06 Case No. 19-3429 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Mar 16, 2020 JOSE ARISTONDO-LEMUS, et al., ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioners, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE BOARD OF ) IMMIGRATION APPEALS WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, ) ) OPINION Respondent. ) ) BEFORE: GRIFFIN, WHITE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges. NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. The Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denied Jose Adolfo Aristondo-Lemus (Jose) and Amanda Judith Sosa de Aristondo’s (Amanda) motion to reopen their removal proceedings. They petition this court to review that decision. Because our precedent controls the question that Petitioners ask us to resolve, we DENY the petition for review. I. Both Petitioners are natives and citizens of Guatemala. Jose arrived in the United States in early 2001 as a non-immigrant visitor with authorization to remain in the United States for a temporary period not to exceed six months. Amanda arrived later that year also as a non-immigrant visitor with authorization to remain for a temporary period not to exceed six months. Both Jose and Amanda remained in the country without authorization beyond the end of their six-month No. 19-3429, Aristondo-Lemus periods. So the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) served on each a “Notice to Appear” (NTA) dated February 2008. (A.R. 6-2 PageID 411, 515.) The NTAs charged each with removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). They required each to appear “on a date to be set at a time to be set to show why [the Petitioner] should not be removed from the United States based on the charge(s) set forth.” (Id. at 411, 515.) DHS later sent each a notice of hearing—dated March 2008 for Jose’s and September 2008 for Amanda’s— titled “NOTICE OF HEARING IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS[.]” (Id. at 408, 513.) Each notice of hearing specified the place and date for the hearing. Petitioners applied for asylum. During their removal proceedings, however, the immigration judge (IJ) found that Petitioners failed to establish their eligibility for asylum. But instead of a removal order, the IJ granted Petitioners voluntary departure and instructed them to each post bond and depart the country before October 30, 2009. The Board also rejected Petitioners’ appeal and remanded to the IJ. And in 2013 the Board rejected Petitioners’ appeal from the IJ’s decision on remand. By late 2018, Petitioners had not departed the country. Instead, they moved to reopen the Board’s earlier decision. They asked the Board to reopen Petitioners’ removal proceedings and remand them to the IJ for further proceedings. The Board denied Petitioners’ motion. First, it found the motion untimely. Petitioners filed the motion about five years after the Board’s decision, well beyond the ninety-day deadline. Second, it acknowledged that the ninety-day deadline does not apply to motions seeking asylum based on changed country conditions in the country of nationality, but concluded that because Petitioners failed to show “materially changed country conditions or circumstances in Guatemala” the evidence submitted likely would not ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals