[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 11, 2007
No. 06-15296 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
BIA Nos. A95-905-600 & A95-905-601
GONZALO DE JESUS SALDARRIAGA,
CLARA OLGA HUERTA ARCILA,
JORGE IVAN ARCILA SALDARRIAGA,
CAROLINA ARCILA SALDARRIAGA,
Petitioners,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(April 11, 2007)
Before DUBINA, CARNES, and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Gonzalo De Jesus Saldarriaga, a native and citizen of Colombia, and his
spouse, Clara Olga Arcila Huerta, and their two children petition for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeal’s (BIA) order denying their motion to reopen
proceedings on the basis of changed circumstances.
We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen proceedings for abuse of
discretion. Gbaya v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 342 F.3d 1219, 1220 (11th Cir. 2003). “In
this particular area, the BIA’s discretion is quite broad.” Id. (internal quotation
omitted). In denying the motion, the BIA must not have acted in an arbitrary or
capricious manner. Garcia-Mir v. Smith, 766 F.2d 1478, 1490 (11th Cir. 1985).
A party may only file one motion to reopen removal proceedings, and that
motion “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)(A), (B). A motion to reopen must be filed no
later than 90 days after the final administrative decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
The 90-day time limit does not apply, however, if the motion to reopen is filed on
the basis of changed circumstances in the country of the movant’s nationality. Id.
§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). To meet this exception, a movant must show material evidence
that was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the
previous hearing. Id.
On June 20, 2006, Saldarriaga filed a motion to reopen proceedings—more
2
than 90 days after the BIA affirmed the IJ’s order of removal on January 9, 2006.
Saldarriaga argues that his motion falls under the “changed circumstances”
exception to the 90-day rule. The BIA determined that he failed to present
sufficient evidence that the political conditions in Colombia have materially
changed since his original asylum hearing. In light of the evidence presented with
his motion to reopen, the BIA’s finding was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
Specifically, the news articles and letters submitted showing the conditions
in Colombia did not meaningfully alter Saldarriaga’s previous claims. They
offered general information about Colombian politics, but much of that
information was available at the time of the initial merit hearing and did not
provide evidence of any material change in country conditions.
Accordingly, none of the proffered evidence established the requisite
changed circumstances in Colombia after Saldarriaga’s asylum hearing, and
Saldarriaga failed to satisfy the exception to the timely filing requirement. We thus
cannot say that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen
proceedings.
PETITION DENIED.
3