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

jurisdictionappealmotionjudicial review
jurisdictionappealmotionjudicial review

Related Cases

Alvarenga-Villalobos v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Giraldo-Hernandez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Valadez; State v.
View Case »
K-H-S-, Matter of
View Case »
So v. Reno
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Matos-Santana v. Holder

Facts

The petitioner entered the United States in 1982 and became a lawful permanent resident. He was charged with robbery in the second degree and auto stripping in the third degree, both of which he pled guilty to. After his removal proceedings began in 2003 due to his robbery conviction being classified as a crime of moral turpitude, he was removed to the Dominican Republic in 2004. In 2010, he filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings based on a Supreme Court decision regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, but the BIA denied this motion as untimely.

The petitioner entered the United States in 1982 and became a lawful permanent resident. He was charged with robbery in the second degree and auto stripping in the third degree, both of which he pled guilty to. After his removal proceedings began in 2003 due to his robbery conviction being classified as a crime of moral turpitude, he was removed to the Dominican Republic in 2004. In 2010, he filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings based on a Supreme Court decision regarding ineffective assistance of counsel, but the BIA denied this motion as untimely.

Issue

Did the BIA err in denying the petitioner's motion to reopen his removal proceedings as untimely?

Did the BIA err in denying the petitioner's motion to reopen his removal proceedings as untimely?

Rule

Motions to reopen removal proceedings must be filed within 90 days of the final order of removal, and the BIA has the discretion to reopen cases sua sponte, but this discretion is not subject to judicial review.

Motions to reopen removal proceedings must be filed within 90 days of the final order of removal, and the BIA has the discretion to reopen cases sua sponte, but this discretion is not subject to judicial review.

Analysis

The court found that the BIA did not err in determining that the petitioner's motion to reopen was time-barred, as it was filed more than six years after the final order of removal. The BIA also reasonably declined to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen the case, given that the petitioner had not made efforts to challenge his auto-stripping conviction in the appropriate court.

The court found that the BIA did not err in determining that the petitioner's motion to reopen was time-barred, as it was filed more than six years after the final order of removal. The BIA also reasonably declined to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen the case, given that the petitioner had not made efforts to challenge his auto-stripping conviction in the appropriate court.

Conclusion

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

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

Who won?

The Board of Immigration Appeals prevailed in the case as the court upheld its decision to deny the motion to reopen based on timeliness and lack of jurisdiction.

The Board of Immigration Appeals prevailed in the case as the court upheld its decision to deny the motion to reopen based on timeliness and lack of jurisdiction.

You must be