20-3782
Alvarado Arce v. Garland
BIA
A205 616 779/780
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION
TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED
AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS
COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT
FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX
OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A
PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall
3 United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of
4 New York, on the 26th day of April, two thousand twenty-
5 three.
6
7 PRESENT:
8 GUIDO CALABRESI,
9 JOSÉ A. CABRANES,
10 JOSEPH F. BIANCO,
11 Circuit Judges.
12 _____________________________________
13
14 ELVIS EUGENIO ALVARADO ARCE,
15 MANUELA MERCEDES PAUTA GUAMAN,
16 Petitioners,
17
18 v. 20-3782
19 NAC
20 MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
21 STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
22 Respondent.
23 _____________________________________
24
25
26 FOR PETITIONERS: Perham Makabi, Esq., Kew Gardens,
27 NY.
28
1 FOR RESPONDENT: Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant
2 Attorney General; Anthony P.
3 Nicastro, Assistant Director;
4 Matthew B. George, Senior
5 Litigation Counsel, Office of
6 Immigration Litigation, United
7 States Department of Justice,
8 Washington, DC.
9 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a
10 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby
11 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review
12 is DENIED.
13 Petitioners Elvis Eugenio Alvarado Arce and Manuela
14 Mercedes Pauta Guaman, natives and citizens of Ecuador, seek
15 review of an October 7, 2020, decision of the BIA denying
16 their motion to reopen. In re Alvarado Arce, Pauta Guaman,
17 Nos. A205 616 779/780 (B.I.A. Oct. 7, 2020). We assume the
18 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural
19 history.
20 We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for
21 abuse of discretion, Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 517 (2d
22 Cir. 2006), and country conditions determinations for
23 substantial evidence, Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138,
24 168–69 (2d Cir. 2008).
2
1 It is undisputed that Petitioners motion to reopen was
2 untimely and number barred because it was their second motion
3 filed approximately three years after their removal order.
4 See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A) (allowing one motion to reopen),
5 (C)(i) (90-day deadline for motion to reopen); 8 C.F.R.
6 § 1003.2(c)(2) (same). There is an exception to these time
7 and number limits if the motion is filed to seek asylum “based
8 on changed country conditions arising in the country of
9 nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered,
10 if such evidence is material and was not available and would
11 not have been discovered or presented at the previous
12 proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8
13 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).
14 Petitioners sought reopening to apply for asylum based
15 on worsening violence against indigenous women in Ecuador.
16 “In determining whether evidence accompanying a motion to
17 reopen demonstrates a material change in country conditions
18 that would justify reopening, [the BIA] compare[s] the
19 evidence of country conditions submitted with the motion to
20 those that existed at the time of the merits hearing below.”
21 In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 247, 253 (B.I.A. 2007). The
3
1 BIA need not “expressly parse or refute on the record each
2 individual argument or piece of evidence offered by the
3 petitioner,” so long as it has “has given reasoned
4 consideration to the petition, and made adequate findings.”
5 Wei Guang Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 275 (2d Cir. 2006)
6 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
7 Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that
8 petitioners failed to establish a material change in
9 conditions in Ecuador. Petitioners claimed that there had
10 been an “increase in violence against indigenous Ecuadorians”
11 with “at least one indigenous leader directly [] killed by
12 government security forces in 2019.” Petitioner’s Br. at 4–
13 5. But their country conditions evidence did not reflect a
14 change. They submitted two pieces of evidence, a 2019
15 article reporting on protests by indigenous women and
16 concluding that “[f]or the Amazonian women and many
17 indigenous people in Ecuador, this month’s protests only
18 highlight what they call years of repression by the
19 government,” Certified Administrative Record (“CAR”) at 148,
20 and the 2014 State Department report on human rights in
21 Ecuador, which provides that “[i]ndigenous groups continued
4
1 to challenge government decisions and laws” and “reported
2 that government persecution continued against their members,”
3 and “[i]ndigenous persons continued to suffer discrimination
4 at many levels of society.” Id. at 186–87. On this record,
5 the BIA did not err in concluding that petitioners failed to
6 establish a change in the level of violence against indigenous
7 women since 2014. See In re S-Y-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 253.
8 Petitioners allege that the BIA did not fully analyze
9 their claim of changed conditions. But they raised their
10 changed conditions argument in a single paragraph in their
11 motion to reopen and did not present country conditions
12 evidence warranting further analysis. See Wei Guang Wang,
13 437 F.3d at 274–75 (concluding that BIA’s one sentence
14 analysis of changed conditions was not an abuse of
15 discretion).
16 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
17 DENIED. All pending motions and applications are DENIED and
18 stays VACATED.
19 FOR THE COURT:
20 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe,
21 Clerk of Court
5