United States v. 2020-01-13 | 17-70564 | REY DE LEON-DE LEON V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REY DANIEL ABEDNEGO DE LEON-
DE LEON,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 17-70564
17-72401
Agency No. A205-158-263
MEMORANDUM
*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted December 5, 2019
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON,
**
District Judge.

Petitioner De Leon-De Leon claims eligibility for withholding of removal
based on likely persecution due to his membership in a social group – specifically,
male members of his family. Although we deny the petition on the record created
FILED
JAN 13 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
* *
The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson, United States District Judge for
the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

in the hearing before the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), we grant De Leon-De Leon’s
petition for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen.
Petitioner’s uncle Elias was murdered in 2000. Petitioner; his stepfather,
Jose; and another uncle, David, pushed for an investigation and, later, a conviction
of Elias’s killer. The convicted murderer, Gandini, threatened the family with
death in open court.
Two years later, Petitioner’s stepfather, Jose, was murdered in the taxi he
drove, and nothing was stolen from the scene of the murder. Petitioner’s mother
began receiving threatening phone calls, which continued until his family cut off
the phone line and relocated. In 2006, Petitioner fled Guatemala. In 2011,
Petitioner’s uncle David, who had along with Petitioner and his stepfather pushed
for an investigation into Elias’s murder, was killed, and David’s son was shot and
left for dead, in the woodworking shop where they worked. Again, nothing was
stolen from the scene of the murder. The following year, two of Petitioner’s
brothers were extorted at the motorcycle shop where they worked.
Petitioner believes that the subsequent violence and threats against his
family are causally related to Gandini’s threat. But based on this evidence, the IJ
and Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) concluded that there was an
insufficient showing that the violence and threats were connected to Gandini. The
2

BIA’s conclusion – that the nexus between Gandini’s threat and the violence
suffered by Petitioner’s family was inadequate – was sufficiently supported.
After the BIA’s decision, however, Petitioner discovered that his nephew
had been attacked in Guatemala by two men in November 2016. The men cut the
boy’s face with pliers and told him that “they are coming after [Petitioner and his
brother] . . . [and if the family] went to the police about what they did . . . they
would kill our whole family.” Petitioner filed a motion to reopen. The BIA denied
the motion, reasoning that the new evidence did not add sufficient support to
Petitioner’s claim that the murders and other violence were connected to Gandini.
We hold that the BIA abused its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion to
reopen. Cf. Cano-Merida v. I.N.S., 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002).
Petition DENIED in No. 17-70564, Petition GRANTED in No. 17-72401.
3

De Leon-De Leon v. Barr, No. 17-70564+
MILLER, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in the court’s denial of the petition in No. 17-70564, but I would
also deny the petition in No. 17-72401. A party seeking to reopen proceedings
before the Board of Immigration Appeals must demonstrate that “the new evidence
offered would likely change the result in the case.” Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N.
Dec. 464, 473 (B.I.A. 1992) (emphasis added). The Board did not abuse its
discretion when it concluded that that demanding standard was not satisfied here.
FILED
JAN 13 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS