Douglas Perez-Reyes v. Loretta Lynch

627 F. App'x 370
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedDecember 22, 2015
Docket14-60833
StatusUnpublished

This text of 627 F. App'x 370 (Douglas Perez-Reyes v. Loretta Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Douglas Perez-Reyes v. Loretta Lynch, 627 F. App'x 370 (5th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Douglas Rafael Perez-Reyes, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge denying his motion to reopen. Perez-Reyes maintains that threats made by a gang member against his family show changed country conditions in El Salvador that warrant reopening his proceedings.

Ordinarily, an alien must file a motion to reopen within 90 days of the date on which the final administrative decision is entered, and an alien may file only one such motion. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). The time and numerical limitations do not apply, however, if the basis of the motion is to apply for asylum relief and is based upon “changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence [of change] is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii).

We review the denial of a motion to reopen “under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 303 (5th Cir.2005). The BIA’s decision will be upheld “so long as it is not capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Zhao, 404 F.3d at 304. “Motions to reopen deportation proceedings are disfavored, and the moving party bears a heavy burden.” Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547, 549 (5th Cir.2006) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Perez-Reyes has not met these standards. Accordingly, his petition for review is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cm. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Yu Zhao v. Gonzales
404 F.3d 295 (Fifth Circuit, 2005)
Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales
435 F.3d 547 (Fifth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
627 F. App'x 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglas-perez-reyes-v-loretta-lynch-ca5-2015.