Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Juan De Dios Araujo-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States without inspection in 2001. After being served a Notice to Appear in 2018, he sought cancellation of removal, which an immigration judge denied in 2019; the BIA dismissed his appeal in 2025. Thereafter, Araujo-Perez filed a motion to reopen proceedings based on new evidence supporting two distinct forms of relief.
First, he sought T-visa status based on alleged labor trafficking in Spokane in 2022, submitting a USPS delivery confirmation as proof he timely filed the T-visa application with USCIS, noting that USCIS receipt notices often take up to 120 days—exceeding the 90-day deadline to file a motion to reopen. Second, he sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on his cousin’s murder by a cartel in Mexico after the BIA’s 2025 decision, submitting a sworn declaration describing the killing and his fear of being targeted as a family member. The BIA denied the motion to reopen, prompting this petition for review.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded to the BIA. The court held that the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen on both grounds.
Regarding the T-visa claim, the BIA erred by (1) faulting Araujo-Perez for failing to provide a USCIS receipt notice despite his explanation that the 120-day processing time exceeds the 90-day filing deadline and his submission of a USPS delivery confirmation as substitute proof, without explaining why that confirmation was insufficient; and (2) asserting he failed to submit evidence of cooperation with law enforcement, contrary to the record showing he checked the “Yes” box on his T-visa application affirming cooperation. Regarding the asylum, withholding, and CAT claims, the BIA erred by (1) claiming Araujo-Perez presented no evidence of his cousin’s murder or his own risk, ignoring his sworn declaration which must be accepted as true unless inherently unbelievable; and (2) stating he failed to identify the relief sought, when his motion explicitly requested asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on the cousin’s murder. The court also granted the motions to stay removal.
Key Takeaways
- The BIA must consider and address all evidence submitted by a petitioner and weigh favorable and unfavorable factors; failure to do so constitutes an abuse of discretion.
- A petitioner may satisfy the evidentiary burden for a motion to reopen with a T-visa claim by submitting a USPS delivery confirmation as proof of filing when USCIS receipt notices are delayed beyond the 90-day regulatory deadline.
- Checking the “Yes” box on a T-visa application affirming cooperation with law enforcement constitutes evidence of cooperation that the BIA may not ignore.
- A sworn declaration describing a family member’s murder and the petitioner’s resulting fear of persecution must be accepted as true on a motion to reopen unless inherently unbelievable.
- A motion to reopen that explicitly identifies the forms of relief sought—asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT—satisfies the requirement to specify the relief requested.
Why It Matters
This memorandum disposition reinforces the BIA’s obligation to engage with the record in its entirety when adjudicating motions to reopen. It clarifies that practical filing constraints—such as USCIS processing times exceeding regulatory deadlines—do not excuse the BIA from evaluating substitute evidence of filing.
The decision also reaffirms that sworn declarations supporting motions to reopen are presumed credible and that the BIA cannot summarily dismiss claims by misrepresenting the record. While non-precedential under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, the ruling provides a clear application of existing abuse-of-discretion standards in the context of T-visa and asylum-related motions to reopen.