Villatoro-Ochoa v. Lynch, 010417 FED8, 15-3103

Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Judge Panel:Before COLLOTON, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Opinion Judge:MELLOY, Circuit Judge.
Party Name:Eluid Harodi Villatoro-Ochoa Petitioner v. Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States Respondent
Case Date:January 04, 2017
Docket Nº:15-3103
 
FREE EXCERPT

Eluid Harodi Villatoro-Ochoa Petitioner

v.

Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States Respondent

No. 15-3103

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

January 4, 2017

          Submitted: September 20, 2016

         Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

          Before COLLOTON, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

          MELLOY, Circuit Judge.

         After unsuccessfully seeking withholding of removal, Eluid Harodi Villatoro-Ochoa, a native and citizen of Guatemala, filed an untimely motion to reopen his removal proceedings. To excuse the untimeliness of his motion, Villatoro-Ochoa asserted changed country conditions in Guatemala. The BIA concluded that Villatoro-Ochoa failed to establish changed country conditions and denied his motion to reopen. We affirm.

          I. Background

         Villatoro-Ochoa was a pastor with an evangelical Christian church in Guatemala. He contends that gangs in the area threatened, harassed, and extorted him because the gangs did not want him to influence gang members to leave the gang or deter new members from joining. Due to these threats, Villatoro-Ochoa left Guatemala and entered the United States without inspection in March 1998.

         Villatoro-Ochoa was issued a Notice to Appear on October 31, 2003. He admitted the Notice's factual allegations and conceded removability. He filed an application for withholding of removal on April 2, 2007, based on threats and gang violence in Guatemala. The IJ denied the application for withholding of removal on October 15, 2009, finding that Villatoro-Ochoa was not credible and that, even if he were credible, he did not meet the burden for withholding of removal. Villatoro-Ochoa appealed to the BIA, and the BIA affirmed the IJ's denial of relief on February 14, 2012.

         On October 19, 2012, Villatoro-Ochoa filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings, well past the 90-day filing deadline in 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). The IJ dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Villatoro-Ochoa appealed to the BIA and filed a second, separate motion to reopen with the BIA on January 18, 2013. On August 21, 2015, the BIA dismissed the appeal and denied Villatoro-Ochoa's second ...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP