U.S.

Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals

Office ofthe Clerk

I 5107 leesburg Pike, Suite 2000

Falls Church, Virginia 22041

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

Robinson, Zarana OHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - WAS
LEYRUTA,PLLC 1901 S. Bell Street, Suite 900
1110-D Elden Street Arlington, VA 22202
Suite 107
Herndon, VA 20170

Date of this notice: 9/7/2017

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision and order in the above-referenced case.

Sincerely,

/// J Ji 1
i Jl,v.;_,
:....
\.._/",
1-, ,"-...., --;,
0
Cynthia L. Crosby
Deputy Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members:
Guendelsberger, John

Userteam: Docket

For more unpublished BIA decisions, visit

www.irac.net/unpublished/index
 U.S. Department of Justice

..;
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Board ofImmigration Appeals

Office of the Clerk

5107 leesburg Pike, Suite 2000

Falls Church, Virginia 2204/

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

c-tall DHS/ICE Office of Chief Counsel - WAS
A 328 1901 S. Bell Street, Suite 900
FARMVILLE DETENTION CENTER Arlington, VA 22202
508 WATERWORKS DR
P.O BOX N
FARMVILLE, VA 23901

Name:Rac

Date of this notice: 9/7/2017

Enclosed is a copy of the Board's decision in the above-referenced case. This copy is being
provided to you as a courtesy. Your attorney or representative has been served with this
decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1292.S(a). If the attached decision orders that you be
removed from the United States or affirms an Immigration Judge's decision ordering that you
be removed, any petition for review of the attached decision must be filed with and received
by the appropriate court of appeals within 30 days of the date of the decision.

Sincerely,

!/) J ,.. {_I

011 - c/Wo
Cynthia L. Crosby
Deputy Chief Clerk

Enclosure

Panel Members:
Guendelsberger, John

Userteam:
U.S. Department of Justice Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Executive Office for Immigration Review

Falls Church, Virginia22041

File: 328 - Arlington, VA Date:

SEP - 7 2017
In re: c 1111 Rall

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

MOTION

ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: Zarana Robinson, Esquire

ON BEHALF OF OHS: Kathryn J.H. Boardman

Assistant Chief Counsel

APPLICATION: Reopening

The respondent, a native and citizen of Mexico, has submitted a motion to reopen removal
proceedings to apply for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention
Against Torture. The Department of Homeland Security (OHS) filed a memorandum opposing
the motion and the respondent filed a supplement to his motion. After considering the motion and
supporting documents, we grant the motion to reopen and remand for further proceedings.

The respondent does not dispute that his motion is untimely. He relies on the exception to the
time bar for motions to apply for asylum or withholding of removal "based on changed country
conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered,
if such evidence was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous
proceeding." Section 240(a)(c)(7)(C)(ii) of the Act; 8 U.S.C. 1229(a)(C)(7)(C)(ii).

To meet the changed country conditions exception, the respondent must demonstrate a material
change in country conditions and prima facie eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal.
Wanrong Lin v. Holder, 771 F.3d 177, 185 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting that the respondent's burden
"was to show that country conditions in [his country] were materially different from those
conditions at the time of his original removal proceedings").

Given the evidence presented with the motion, including the evidence regarding the recent
killings of the respondent's family members, and the recent Fourth Circuit and Board law
regarding family as a particular social group, we find that reopening is appropriate. See Cruz v.
Sessions, 853 F.3d 122, 129-30 (4th Cir. 2017); Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944, 949-
50 (4th Cir. 2015); Cordova v. Holder, 759 F.3d 332, 337 (4th Cir. 2014) (remanding for
consideration of membership in extended family as particular social group); Crespin-Valladares
v. Holder, 632 F.3d 117, 124-25 (4th Cir. 2011); Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I&N Dec. 40, 42 (BIA
2017).

Ultimately, whether the respondent can demonstrate a cognizable particular social group based
on family ties will depend on an evaluation of the particularity and the social distinction of the
proposed group. See Matter ofC-A-, 23 I&N Dec. 951,959 (BIA 2006) ("Social groups based on
innate characteristics such as sex or family relationship are generally easily recognizable and
understood by others to constitute social groups."), clarified by Matter ofM-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec.
227(BIA 2014), and Matter ofW-G-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). See also, Matter ofL-E
A-, 27 I&N Dec. at 42. Without deciding the underlying issues of particularity and social
distinction, we find that the respondent has shown a change in circumstances in his home country
which could materially affect his eligibility for asylum as a member of a particular social group

Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLC | www.irac.net

based on family ties.

In remanding, we offer no suggestion as to whether the respondent can meet his ultimate
burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence in an asylum hearing that he is eligible for
asylum. On remand both parties will have an opportunity to develop the record and the respondent
may present testimony and additional corroborating evidence as to whether the claimed particular
social group is cognizable, whether the requisite nexus to a protected ground has been
demonstrated, and whether the respondent has established an objective basis for a well-founded
fear of persecution.

Accordingly, the following order will be entered.

ORDER: The motion to reopen is granted and the record is remanded for further proceedings
regarding asylum or other relief from removal for which the respondent may be eligible.