Reasoned Consideration and Evidentiary Sufficiency at the Reconsideration Stage: Preliminary Diagnoses and Generalized Violence Do Not Establish Prima Facie Relief

Introduction

In Armando Anaya-Jimenez v. U.S. Attorney General, the Eleventh Circuit (per curiam, non-argument calendar, unpublished) denied a petition for review from a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order denying a motion to reconsider. The petitioner, a Mexican citizen, sought cancellation of removal based on hardship to his U.S.-citizen children and, in later motions, pursued asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection. He challenged the BIA’s rejection of new medical and psychological evidence and its analysis of alleged cartel-related violence against extended family in Mexico.

The case sits at the intersection of procedural motion practice in immigration proceedings (reopening vs. reconsideration), the high hardship threshold for non-LPR cancellation of removal, and the substantive prima facie showings required for asylum and CAT relief. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision underscores that:

Preliminary or cursory medical/psychological indications will not, without more, satisfy the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” threshold for cancellation at the prima facie stage.
The BIA satisfies the “reasoned consideration” requirement when it acknowledges and evaluates the core evidence and arguments, even without discussing every document.
Evidence of generalized cartel violence or harm to relatives, absent identification of perpetrators or motives tied to a protected ground, is insufficient for asylum or CAT prima facie eligibility.
A motion to reconsider cannot simply repackage arguments from a failed motion to reopen, and attaching new evidence to a reconsideration filing permits the BIA to treat it as an additional (and typically time/number-barred) motion to reopen.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration. Specifically:

Cancellation of Removal: The BIA did not impose legally erroneous evidentiary demands. It permissibly found that evidence of an adult daughter’s post-transplant status did not show inability to work and that preliminary psychological notes regarding two minor children did not demonstrate hardship at the required level.
Reasoned Consideration: The BIA gave reasoned consideration to asylum and CAT submissions by acknowledging violent incidents affecting relatives and country conditions, then explaining the lack of nexus to a protected ground and lack of state action/acquiescence.
Asylum Prima Facie Case: Classifying the asserted fear as based on generalized violence was not an abuse of discretion because the record did not identify perpetrators/motives nor show that petitioner would be targeted on account of family or another protected ground.
Procedural Posture: Because the motion to reconsider introduced new evidence, the BIA also treated it as a second motion to reopen and denied it under time-and-number limitations.

Disposition: Petition for review denied.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Ferreira v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 714 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2013): Established the abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing BIA denials of reconsideration. The BIA abuses discretion by misapplying the law, disregarding its own precedents without reasoned explanation, or acting arbitrarily/capriciously. The court measured the BIA’s analysis against this standard.
Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 931 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2019): Articulates the “reasoned consideration” requirement—BIA must consider the key issues and provide reasoning sufficient for review, without needing to catalog every piece of evidence.
Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2015), overruled in part on other grounds by Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411 (2023): Reiterates that reasoned consideration does not demand discussion of each item of evidence, only that the agency’s path is reasonably discernible.
Calle v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 504 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007): A motion to reconsider cannot merely reassert arguments made in a prior motion to reopen; doing so is grounds for denial.
Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2005), and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1), 1101(a)(42): Outline the asylum framework: an applicant must show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground (race, religion, nationality, particular social group—including, in some contexts, family membership—or political opinion).

These authorities shaped the Eleventh Circuit’s assessment of whether the BIA reasonably applied governing standards to the specific evidentiary record and procedural posture of the case.

Legal Reasoning Applied

1) Cancellation of Removal: Evidentiary sufficiency at the prima facie stage

The court rejected the argument that the BIA imposed an “explicit proof” requirement concerning the adult daughter’s inability to work. The record contained indications that the daughter was “fine” after her kidney transplant. Given that the daughter is not a qualifying relative for cancellation purposes, her capacity to assist with finances was appropriately considered in the hardship calculus relating to the qualifying minors; the BIA’s inference that she could help did not misapply law.
The psychological materials for the two minor children were described as “preliminary and cursory,” consisting of scheduled evaluations and “preliminary diagnostic impressions” of asthma, PTSD, and major depressive disorder. The BIA permissibly found that such preliminary indications, without developed diagnoses and evidence of severity/functionality impacts, did not make out the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard at the reopening stage.

2) Reasoned consideration for asylum and CAT

The BIA acknowledged reported incidents—the nephew’s murder and cousin’s daughter’s kidnapping—and country conditions materials regarding violence and corruption. It then explained why this evidence did not establish a prima facie asylum claim: the record did not identify perpetrators or motives nor link the feared harm to a protected ground (such as family membership), as opposed to generalized criminal violence.
For CAT, the BIA recognized country violence but found the evidence insufficient to show a likelihood of torture with the requisite governmental involvement or acquiescence. The Eleventh Circuit held that this analysis satisfied reasoned consideration; the BIA need not address every item in the record so long as its rationale and consideration of core issues are clear.

3) Asylum nexus and the “generalized violence” problem

The petitioner’s claim faltered on nexus. Without identification of perpetrators or motives for the harm to relatives, the record did not demonstrate that he would face persecution “on account of” family membership or any other protected ground. The court emphasized that the motion to reconsider largely repackaged arguments from the failed motion to reopen, which Calle forbids.

4) Procedural posture: Reconsideration vs. reopening

The motion to reconsider attached new evidence. The BIA therefore construed it in part as a second motion to reopen and denied it as barred by the time-and-number limitations that govern reopening. The Eleventh Circuit endorsed this approach, reinforcing that petitioners must use the proper procedural vehicle—and exceptions—when seeking to introduce new evidence after an initial unsuccessful motion to reopen.

Impact and Forward-Looking Significance

Even though unpublished and therefore non-precedential, the decision offers practical guidance for practitioners in the Eleventh Circuit:

Hardship evidence must be specific, developed, and functionally grounded. Preliminary medical or psychological impressions, without formal diagnoses, treatment plans, longitudinal records, or functional assessments, will rarely carry the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” burden at the motion-to-reopen stage.
Non-qualifying relatives still matter to the hardship calculus. Their capacity to support qualifying relatives may undermine claims that removal would inflict extraordinary hardship. Evidence should candidly address and document the support network’s realistic limitations.
Asylum nexus remains a critical hurdle. Generalized criminality, even tragic violence by cartels, will not suffice without credible, specific evidence that the harm or feared harm is “on account of” a protected ground. In family-based claims, petitioners should marshal evidence showing that the family itself is targeted as a group, beyond the ambient risks affecting all families in the locality.
CAT requires more than dangerous conditions. Proof of likely torture must be paired with evidence of government involvement or acquiescence. General corruption or weak public security does not, by itself, establish the requisite state action.
Motion practice discipline is essential. A reconsideration motion must identify specific errors of law or fact in the BIA’s prior decision—not simply re-urge earlier points. If new evidence is necessary, it should be presented via a motion to reopen that complies with timing and numerical limits or invokes a recognized exception (such as materially changed country conditions for asylum-related claims).
Reasoned consideration is a modest threshold. On appeal, it will be difficult to prevail by claiming a lack of reasoned consideration where the BIA summarized the claims, acknowledged central evidence, and articulated rational grounds for denial.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship: A high bar in cancellation-of-removal cases for non–lawful permanent residents. The applicant must show hardship to a qualifying U.S. relative (e.g., a citizen child) that is substantially beyond the norm expected from removal. This often requires detailed medical, educational, or special-needs evidence and explanation of why the situation is extraordinary.
Prima Facie Eligibility: At the motion-to-reopen stage, the applicant must present evidence which, if accepted as true, would establish a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying relief.
Motion to Reopen vs. Motion to Reconsider:
- Reopen: Seeks to submit new evidence or changed circumstances; generally limited in time and number, with narrow exceptions (e.g., changed country conditions for asylum-related claims).
- Reconsider: Asks the BIA to re-evaluate its decision based on alleged legal or factual errors; it is not a vehicle to present new evidence or to reargue the same points.
Reasoned Consideration: The BIA must show it considered the key arguments and evidence and provide an explanation sufficient for a reviewing court to understand its path, without being required to discuss every document.
Asylum “Nexus” to a Protected Ground: Persecution must be “on account of” a protected characteristic (race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group). Violence arising from general criminality or instability typically fails without a link to a protected ground. Family can be a social group, but applicants must demonstrate targeting because of that family.
CAT “State Action”/Acquiescence: Relief requires proof that torture is more likely than not and that officials would inflict it, consent to it, or acquiesce (including willful blindness). Generalized corruption or ineffectiveness does not automatically satisfy this prong.
Time-and-Number Limits on Reopening: Typically one motion to reopen within a set timeframe (commonly 90 days) after the final order, with limited statutory or regulatory exceptions. A reconsideration motion with new evidence may be treated as an additional motion to reopen and face these restrictions.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s unpublished denial in Anaya-Jimenez reinforces several durable themes in immigration adjudication. First, on cancellation of removal, generalized assertions or preliminary medical impressions will not carry the heavy hardship burden. Second, the BIA’s reasoned consideration duty is met by acknowledging the core evidence and explaining the decision’s rationale, even briefly. Third, asylum and CAT claims must clear exacting prima facie thresholds—particularly establishing nexus to a protected ground and governmental acquiescence in torture—beyond evidence of pervasive criminal violence. Finally, procedural rigor matters: reconsideration is for pinpointing legal or factual error, not for relitigating or introducing new evidence; if new facts are essential, a properly timed and supported motion to reopen is the correct vehicle.

While not binding precedent, the decision offers clear practice guidance: build robust, diagnosis-backed records for hardship; carefully articulate nexus and state involvement for protection claims; and use the correct procedural tools, mindful of time and number limits. These lessons will shape how future litigants in the Eleventh Circuit frame motions and assemble evidence to meet stringent statutory and regulatory standards.