The Third Circuit has clarified the standards for reopening a removal proceeding based on changed country conditions, noting that there is both a materiality standard and a prima facie standard that must be met. “Materiality requires that applicant’s evidence address the deficiencies of her application, while the prima facie standard requires that the evidence be sufficient to show a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements have been met. When an IJ denies relief upon finding that an applicant has failed to meet a particular element of the claim, the applicant moving to reopen must present evidence directly addressing the element the IJ found deficient. The applicant’s evidence, taken as a whole, is not material if it merely strengthens the other elements of her claim without addressing the element the IJ found deficient. But if the applicant presents new evidence that addresses the IJ’s findings and was previously unavailable, she clears the procedural hurdle. Then, if the new, material evidence of changed country conditions can show a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements [for relief] have been satisfied, she clears the substantive hurdle.”
The full text of Darby v. Attorney General can be found here: