Perez v. Garland ( 2021 )

Case: 20-60595 Document: 00515913440 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/24/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 24, 2021
No. 20-60595
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
Ana C. Perez, also known as Ines Rosario Perez,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A094 923 673
Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Ana C. Perez is a native and citizen of Guatemala who has filed a
petition for review with this court challenging a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her motion to reopen her removal
proceedings in order to apply for asylum. She argues that the denial was
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-60595 Document: 00515913440 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/24/2021
No. 20-60595
erroneous because she showed that conditions in Guatemala, especially for
women, have deteriorated, leading her to fear for her safety even more than
she did previously. She also contends that the BIA infringed her due process
rights because it did not give her claim proper consideration.
Motions to reopen are disfavored, and one who brings such a motion
has a heavy burden. Ojeda-Calderon v. Holder, 726 F.3d 669, 672 (5th Cir.
2013). Accordingly, the denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed under “a
highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Id. (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). Under this standard, the denial will be upheld
even if this court concludes that it is erroneous, “so long as it is not
capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or
otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any
perceptible rational approach.” Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295, 304 (5th Cir.
2005) (citation omitted). A motion to reopen may be denied if the alien fails
to make a prima facie showing that he is entitled to the underlying substantive
relief requested. I.N.S. v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104 (1988).
The record shows no abuse of discretion in connection with the denial
of the motion to reopen but instead shows that the BIA applied the relevant
law to the facts in front of it. See id.; Zhao, 404 F.3d at 303-04. Perez’s due
process claim fails for want of a showing of substantial prejudice. See Santos-
Alvarado v. Barr, 967 F.3d 428, 439 (5th Cir. 2020). The petition for review
is DENIED.
2