Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Johanna Briseyda Vasquez Bonilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, was ordered removed from the United States in absentia. She subsequently filed a motion to reopen with the Board of Immigration Appeals, raising two claims: (1) that she lacked proper notice of the removal hearing, and (2) that country conditions in El Salvador had materially changed since her removal order. The BIA denied her motion to reopen in July 2025, and Vasquez Bonilla petitioned the Fifth Circuit for review.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit dismissed and denied the petition in part. First, regarding the lack-of-notice claim, the court found that Vasquez Bonilla waived this argument by failing to brief it in her petition for review. The court noted that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying reopening on this ground. Second, on the changed country conditions claim, the court held that Vasquez Bonilla failed to make a meaningful comparison between El Salvador’s earlier and recent conditions that would demonstrate the requisite material change necessary for reopening. Additionally, the court could not consider evidence outside the administrative record under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A). Finally, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of sua sponte regulatory reopening, given that such reopenings are entirely discretionary in nature.
Key Takeaways
- Failure to brief an argument in a petition for review results in waiver of that claim on appeal.
- To demonstrate changed country conditions warranting reopening, a petitioner must make a meaningful comparison showing material change—mere allegations are insufficient.
- Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review BIA decisions denying sua sponte reopening due to the entirely discretionary nature of such decisions.
- BIA decisions denying motions to reopen are reviewed under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the substantial obstacles facing immigration petitioners seeking to reopen removal cases. The ruling emphasizes that both procedural defaults (failure to brief arguments) and substantive shortcomings (insufficient evidence of changed conditions) will result in denial, and that courts have limited ability to second-guess agency discretion in the reopening context. For immigration practitioners, the decision underscores the importance of thoroughly briefing all arguments and presenting clear evidence of material changes in country conditions to support reopening motions.