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

jurisdictionmotionregulationasylumdeportationnaturalizationjudicial review
jurisdictionmotionregulationasylumdeportationnaturalizationjudicial review

Related Cases

Zambrano v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Belegradek v. Gonzales
View Case »
Shah v. Wilco Sys., Inc.
View Case »
Reyes-Morales v. Wells
View Case »
Ochoa v. Holder
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ekimian v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Facts

Tigran Ekimian, an Armenian citizen, entered the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor in 1993, along with his wife and son. They applied for asylum in December 1993, but their petition was denied in 1995, leading to deportation proceedings. After a lengthy delay, Ekimian's employer filed for his permanent residency, which was approved in 1997. However, the BIA denied their motion to reopen the deportation proceedings as untimely, as it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA's final decision.

Tigran Ekimian, an Armenian citizen, entered the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor in 1993, along with his wife and son. They applied for asylum in December 1993, but their petition was denied in 1995, leading to deportation proceedings. After a lengthy delay, Ekimian's employer filed for his permanent residency, which was approved in 1997. However, the BIA denied their motion to reopen the deportation proceedings as untimely, as it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA's final decision.

Issue

Did the BIA abuse its discretion in denying the Ekimians' motion to reopen deportation proceedings as untimely and in refusing to reopen the case sua sponte?

Did the BIA abuse its discretion in denying the Ekimians' motion to reopen deportation proceedings as untimely and in refusing to reopen the case sua sponte?

Rule

Under 8 C.F.R. 3.2(c)(2), a party-filed motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the BIA's final decision. The BIA has discretion to reopen cases sua sponte, but this discretion is not subject to judicial review due to the lack of a meaningful standard.

Under 8 C.F.R. 3.2(c)(2), a party-filed motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the BIA's final decision. The BIA has discretion to reopen cases sua sponte, but this discretion is not subject to judicial review due to the lack of a meaningful standard.

Analysis

The court found that the Ekimians' motion to reopen was filed well after the 90-day limit set by the regulations, making it untimely. Furthermore, the court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority, as there were no clear standards to evaluate the BIA's discretion in such matters.

The court found that the Ekimians' motion to reopen was filed well after the 90-day limit set by the regulations, making it untimely. Furthermore, the court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority, as there were no clear standards to evaluate the BIA's discretion in such matters.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition for review, affirming the BIA's decision to dismiss the motion to reopen as untimely and holding that it could not review the BIA's refusal to reopen the case sua sponte.

The court denied the petition for review, affirming the BIA's decision to dismiss the motion to reopen as untimely and holding that it could not review the BIA's refusal to reopen the case sua sponte.

Who won?

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) prevailed in the case as the court upheld the BIA's decision to deny the motion to reopen.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) prevailed in the case as the court upheld the BIA's decision to deny the motion to reopen.

You must be