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

precedenthearingmotionparoledue processasylumobjection
precedenthearingmotionparoledue processasylumobjection

Related Cases

Hidalgo-Mejia v. Pitts
View Case »
Berroteran-Melendez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
United States v. Lizardi-Maldonado
View Case »
Gordon, Matter of
View Case »
reno v. catholic soc. servs.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lopez-Reyes v. Gonzales

Facts

Lopez's removal proceedings began on July 28, 2000, shortly after she had arrived in the United States without being admitted or paroled. She was removed in absentia on November 2, 2000 after failing to appear at a scheduled hearing, but that removal order was subsequently revoked. On March 28, 2002, Lopez applied for asylum. On April 20, 2005, Lopez argued to the IJ that her removal proceedings should be closed or stayed until her father's pending application for asylum was adjudicated, so that she could claim derivative asylum benefits. The IJ denied Lopez's motion for administrative closure based on an objection made by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Lopez's removal proceedings began on July 28, 2000, shortly after she had arrived in the United States without being admitted or paroled. She was removed in absentia on November 2, 2000 after failing to appear at a scheduled hearing, but that removal order was subsequently revoked. On March 28, 2002, Lopez applied for asylum. On April 20, 2005, Lopez argued to the IJ that her removal proceedings should be closed or stayed until her father's pending application for asylum was adjudicated, so that she could claim derivative asylum benefits. The IJ denied Lopez's motion for administrative closure based on an objection made by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Issue

Whether Evelin Lopez-Reyes has stated a colorable due process claim arising from the denial by an Immigration Judge of her motion to administratively close or stay her removal proceedings.

Whether Evelin Lopez-Reyes has stated a colorable due process claim arising from the denial by an Immigration Judge of her motion to administratively close or stay her removal proceedings.

Rule

Under BIA precedent, a case may not be administratively closed if either party opposes. Administrative closure is a procedural convenience that may be granted if both parties to the removal proceedings agree, but it does not constitute a final order.

Under BIA precedent, a case may not be administratively closed if either party opposes. Administrative closure is a procedural convenience that may be granted if both parties to the removal proceedings agree, but it does not constitute a final order.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that the IJ did not err in denying Lopez's motion for administrative closure due to the DHS's objection. The BIA held that the reasons for the DHS's opposition were irrelevant and that Lopez had not demonstrated a cognizable liberty or property interest at stake, nor had she shown any cognizable prejudice.

The court applied the rule by determining that the IJ did not err in denying Lopez's motion for administrative closure due to the DHS's objection. The BIA held that the reasons for the DHS's opposition were irrelevant and that Lopez had not demonstrated a cognizable liberty or property interest at stake, nor had she shown any cognizable prejudice.

Conclusion

The petition for review was denied.

The petition for review was denied.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that Lopez did not state a colorable due process claim and that the IJ's denial of her motion for administrative closure was justified based on the DHS's objection.

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that Lopez did not state a colorable due process claim and that the IJ's denial of her motion for administrative closure was justified based on the DHS's objection.

You must be