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

jurisdictionmotionparolevisa
jurisdictionmotionparolevisa

Related Cases

Jafari v. Pompeo
View Case »
Grey v. Cissna
View Case »
Zapata v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Vargas v. Swan
View Case »
Otiende, Matter of
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Manzano-Garcia v. Gonzales

Facts

Mr. Manzano, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States on or about July 28, 1985, without being admitted or paroled by an immigration officer. Mrs. Manzano and their two sons, also natives and citizens of Mexico, entered the country in April and August 1989, without being admitted or paroled by an immigration officer. In 1998, the family was charged with being subject to removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) for being present in the U.S. without admission or parole. They were granted three continuances during their removal proceedings, but the IJ denied a fourth continuance for lack of good cause and ordered them removed because Mr. Manzano had not filed an immigrant visa petition over three months after the labor certification had been approved.

Mr. Manzano, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States on or about July 28, 1985, without being admitted or paroled by an immigration officer. Mrs. Manzano and their two sons, also natives and citizens of Mexico, entered the country in April and August 1989, without being admitted or paroled by an immigration officer. In 1998, the family was charged with being subject to removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) for being present in the U.S. without admission or parole. They were granted three continuances during their removal proceedings, but the IJ denied a fourth continuance for lack of good cause and ordered them removed because Mr. Manzano had not filed an immigrant visa petition over three months after the labor certification had been approved.

Issue

Whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying the Manzanos' motion to reopen their removal proceedings.

Whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying the Manzanos' motion to reopen their removal proceedings.

Rule

The court has jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) because the BIA exercised its regulatory-granted discretion, rather than any statutorily-provided discretion, to deny the motion.

The court has jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) because the BIA exercised its regulatory-granted discretion, rather than any statutorily-provided discretion, to deny the motion.

Analysis

The court determined that it had jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of the motion to reopen because the BIA exercised its regulatory discretion. The BIA found that Mr. Manzano's visa petition had not been approved prior to the IJ's decision and that the Manzanos had been granted three prior continuances to pursue the labor certification. The BIA concluded that Mr. Manzano's failure to act on the visa petition contributed to the delay, and thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.

The court determined that it had jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of the motion to reopen because the BIA exercised its regulatory discretion. The BIA found that Mr. Manzano's visa petition had not been approved prior to the IJ's decision and that the Manzanos had been granted three prior continuances to pursue the labor certification. The BIA concluded that Mr. Manzano's failure to act on the visa petition contributed to the delay, and thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition for review, affirming the BIA's decision.

The court denied the petition for review, affirming the BIA's decision.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's denial of the motion to reopen, finding no abuse of discretion.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's denial of the motion to reopen, finding no abuse of discretion.

You must be