Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

jurisdictionappealpleamotionfelonyparolepiracy
jurisdictionpleamotionfelonyparolepiracy

Related Cases

H-L-H- & Z-Y-Z-, Matter of
View Case »
Struzik; U.S. v.
View Case »
Payeras v. Sessions
View Case »
Ortiz-Magana v. Mukasey
View Case »
Reno v. Catholic Social Services
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Dominguez v. U.S. Attorney Gen.

Facts

Luis Mario Suarez Dominguez, a native and citizen of Cuba, was paroled into the U.S. in 2001 and became a lawful permanent resident. After pleading guilty to conspiracy to defraud and committing health care fraud in 2006, he was served with a notice to appear before an immigration judge due to his aggravated felony conviction. In 2014, he sought to reopen his removal proceedings based on a change in law but was denied due to the untimeliness of his motion. The BIA dismissed his appeal, leading to this petition for review.

Luis Mario Suarez Dominguez, a native and citizen of Cuba, was paroled into the U.S. in 2001 and became a lawful permanent resident. After pleading guilty to conspiracy to defraud and committing health care fraud in 2006, he was served with a notice to appear before an immigration judge due to his aggravated felony conviction.

Issue

Did the Fifth Circuit have jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision regarding Dominguez's motion to reopen his removal proceedings?

Did the Fifth Circuit have jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision regarding Dominguez's motion to reopen his removal proceedings?

Rule

The court lacks jurisdiction over petitions seeking review of BIA's decisions concerning regulatory motions to reopen, and an alien must exhaust administrative remedies before raising issues in court.

The court lacks jurisdiction over petitions seeking review of BIA's decisions concerning regulatory motions to reopen, and an alien must exhaust administrative remedies before raising issues in court.

Analysis

The court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision because Dominguez's equitable tolling argument was not raised before the BIA, thus failing the exhaustion requirement. Even if he had exhausted his claim, the court noted that it still would not have jurisdiction due to the nature of his removal as an aggravated felon.

The court determined that it did not have jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision because Dominguez's equitable tolling argument was not raised before the BIA, thus failing the exhaustion requirement.

Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

The Fifth Circuit dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court found it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision.

The government prevailed in the case because the court found it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision.

You must be