Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionattorneyprecedentappeal

jurisdictionattorneyleaseparole

Related Cases

Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey

Facts

Sara Diaz-Covarrubias, a native and citizen of Mexico, attempted to enter the United States without inspection in 1990 and was later apprehended. She conceded her removability but applied for cancellation of removal based on hardship to her minor daughter and father. The IJ denied her application, stating she did not establish 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.' Diaz then appealed to the BIA, which adopted the IJ's decision and denied her request for administrative closure.

Sara Diaz-Covarrubias ('Diaz') is a thirty-five year-old native and citizen of Mexico who attempted to enter the United States without inspection in 1990. She was apprehended at the border but then released into the United States. Ten years later, on October 6, 2000, the INS sent Diaz a Notice to Appear, alleging that she was removable under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as an alien not lawfully admitted or paroled into the United States.

Issue

Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of Diaz's request for administrative closure of her case.

Whether we have jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of Diaz's request for administrative closure of her case.

Rule

The court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA's refusal to reopen proceedings sua sponte if there is no meaningful standard for evaluating the BIA's discretion.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's refusal to reopen proceedings sua sponte if there is no meaningful standard for evaluating the BIA's discretion.

Analysis

The court applied the precedent set in Ekimian v. INS, determining that there was no statutory or regulatory basis for administrative closures and that the BIA had not established a meaningful standard for exercising its discretion. The court noted that the BIA's statement regarding administrative closure did not provide sufficient guidance for review.

Applying Ekimian leads to the same conclusion in this case. First, as in Ekimian, there is no statutory basis for administrative closures. Nor is there any regulatory basis for administrative closures. Moreover, the BIA has not set forth any meaningful standard for exercising its discretion to implement an administrative closure.

Conclusion

The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review Diaz's claim that the BIA abused its discretion in not administratively closing her case, and thus dismissed her petition for review.

We must conclude that 'because we cannot discover a sufficiently meaningful standard' for evaluating the BIA's decision not to close a case, we lack jurisdiction to review Diaz's claim that the BIA abused its discretion in not doing so.

Who won?

The U.S. Attorney General prevailed because the court found it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Lopez-Reyes v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Blancada v. Turnage

Sotelo; U.S. v.

Florida v. Royer

Kiviti v. Pompeo