Daniel Pereyra v. Loretta E. Lynch

MEMORANDUM

Daniel Pereyra appeals from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and we deny the petition.

Pereyra failed to file his motion to reopen within ninety days of the date the final administrative decision was rendered and, therefore, the motion was time-barred unless it was “based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality ... if such evidence [was] material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(3)(ii); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). To prevail on a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions, an individual must “clear four hurdles”: (1) he must produce evidence that conditions have changed in the country of nationality; (2) the evidence has to be “material”; (3) “the evidence must not have been available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding”; and (4) he must “demonstrate that the new evidence, when considered together with the evidence…