Ayanian v. Garland

A motion to reopen will be granted when a petitioner produces new, material evidence that the conditions of their country of origin have changed that sufficiently establishes “prima facie eligibility for the relief sought.” Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008).

Petitioner appealed after the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied his second motion to reopen removal proceedings. Petitioner assigned error to the denial of his motion. Petitioner argued that the Court should not decide on the merits of the petition because he was going to be eligible to file for lawful permanent resident (LPR) status within a few months. Further, Petitioner argued the case should be transferred to mediation. In response, the Government argued that they could not estimate when Petitioner would be eligible to file for LPR status. The Government requested the case be transferred to mediation. A motion to reopen will be granted when a petitioner produces new, material evidence that the conditions of their country of origin have changed and establishes “prima facie eligibility for the relief sought.” Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008). The Court reasoned that Petitioner had not provided new evidence supporting his motion to reopen. The Court also reasoned Petitioner’s LPR petition would take more than a year to process. The Court also found that this was not an appropriate dispute for mediation because Petitioner and the Government did not need mediation to maintain their relationship or create better communication and the matter did not require a creative solution. Petition denied.