NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 20a0054n.06 Case No. 19-3499 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Jan 27, 2020 MODY SOUMARE, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ) Petitioner, ) v. ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW ) FROM THE UNITED STATES WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION ) APPEALS Respondent. ) ) BEFORE: GUY, SUTTON, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges. SUTTON, Circuit Judge. The United States denied Mody Soumare asylum and related relief in 2014, and ordered him removed. Four years later, he sought to reopen his case. An immigration judge denied his request, and the Board affirmed. We deny his petition for review. Born in Mauritania in 1975, Soumare illegally entered the United States around 2000. Soumare applied for asylum and related relief, claiming that he feared race-based persecution on account of his African ancestry. An immigration judge denied Soumare’s application. The judge concluded that, while Soumare had been persecuted on account of his race in the past, conditions in Mauritania had improved such that he was not likely to be persecuted if he returned. Soumare did not appeal, and the removal order became final in 2014. Four years later, the government detained Soumare to prepare to remove him. He filed a motion to reopen his case. Well past the 90-day limit for such motions, Soumare argued that an Case No. 19-3499, Soumare v. Barr exception for changed country conditions applied. In asylum cases, “[t]here is no time limit on the filing of a motion to reopen” if the motion is based on previously unavailable and material evidence of “changed country conditions.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). Soumare claimed that conditions for Black Mauritanians had materially worsened since 2014. An immigration judge disagreed. Acknowledging that Black Mauritanians continue to experience discrimination, the judge reasoned that that was just as true in 2014. The Board affirmed. We review the Board’s decision and consider the immigration judge’s reasoning to the extent the Board adopted it. Al-Saka v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 427, 430 (6th Cir. 2018). To succeed on appeal, Soumare must show that the Board abused its discretion. Gafurova v. Whitaker, 911 F.3d 321, 325 (6th Cir. 2018). That requires us to find that the Board’s decision lacked a “rational explanation,” “inexplicably departed from established policies,” or “rested on an impermissible basis.” Id. To sidestep the 90-day bar for motions to reopen, the applicant must introduce previously unavailable and “material” evidence of “changed country conditions.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). To be “material,” the new evidence must make a difference to the asylum claim. Gafurova, 911 F.3d at 326. That means Soumare must show with “reasonabl[e] specific[ity]” how the changed country conditions would affect him if he returned. Harchenko v. INS, 379 F.3d 405, 410 (6th Cir. 2004). Soumare does not point to a specific change in conditions in Mauritania. His claim is more general—that the government ramped up discrimination and other forms of mistreatment against Black Mauritanians in recent years. But the Board had a “rational ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals