Go v. Holder, No. 11-73272 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner sought review of the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court rejected petitioner's principal argument that the regulations governing motions to reopen at 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c) did not apply to motions that arise under the CAT, insofar as the language of these regulations makes no reference to either the CAT or to deferral or removal. Accordingly, the court held that the procedural requirements specified in 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c) applied to CAT claims. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the evidence of "mistreatment and abuse" presented by petitioner did not constitute evidence of "worsening" country conditions, which meant that this evidence was insufficient to show that the "changed circumstances" exception to the bar on untimely motions to reopen applied to this case. The court lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings. Accordingly, the court denied in part and dismissed in part.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel denied a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of an untimely motion to reopen seeking protection under the Convention Against Torture based on changed country conditions in the Philippines. The panel rejected petitioner’s contention that the specific time and number limitations on motions to reopen, set forth at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c), do not apply to motions that arise under the Convention Against Torture. The panel explained that the Convention is not violated by the imposition of reasonable procedural requirements on the adjudication of a petitioner’s claims. The panel held that the Board did not abuse its discretion in concluding that petitioner failed to show that the changed circumstances exception to the bar on untimely motions to reopen applied to this case. Specially concurring, Judge Wallace wrote separately to bring to the court’s attention an intracircuit split concerning the amount of deference owed under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), to a single-member, non-precedential Board decision interpreting its own regulations.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.