929 F.3d 379

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully disagree with the majority opinion's characterization of the Board's opinion. The Board did not reject Pablo's alleged facts; instead, it held that those facts did not show that "conditions ha[d] materially changed in Guatemala since his hearing for purposes of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii)." See AR 4; see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) (authorizing reopening of a proceeding only if the "evidence is material"). That holding is an entirely "rational explanation" for the Board's denial of Pablo's motion to reopen. See Yu Yun Zhang v. Holder, 702 F.3d 878, 879 (6th Cir. 2012). I would therefore deny Pablo's petition.

Passage view · GavelSight