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

jurisdictionmotionregulationdeportationadmissibility
jurisdictionmotionregulationdeportationadmissibility

Related Cases

Hassan v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Munoz de Real v. Holder
View Case »
Velasco-Tijero v. Lynch
View Case »
U.S. v. Maverick Construction LLC
View Case »
Surganova v. Holder
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Reynoso-Cisneros v. Gonzales

Facts

Maria Dolores Reynoso-Cisneros, a native and citizen of Mexico, was placed in exclusion proceedings and deported. After re-entering the United States, she filed a motion to reopen with the BIA, claiming a change in law made her eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under former 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The BIA denied her motion solely on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(d).

Maria Dolores Reynoso-Cisneros, a native and citizen of Mexico, was placed in exclusion proceedings and deported. After re-entering the United States, she filed a motion to reopen with the BIA, claiming a change in law made her eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under former 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The BIA denied her motion solely on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(d).

Issue

Did the BIA err in denying Reynoso-Cisneros' motion to reopen exclusion proceedings based on a lack of jurisdiction?

Did the BIA err in denying Reynoso-Cisneros' motion to reopen exclusion proceedings based on a lack of jurisdiction?

Rule

The court applied the principle that a motion to reopen or reconsider shall not be made by a person who is the subject of exclusion, deportation, or removal proceedings subsequent to their departure from the United States, but this does not preclude jurisdiction over motions filed by those who have been lawfully removed after the completion of immigration proceedings.

The court applied the principle that a motion to reopen or reconsider shall not be made by a person who is the subject of exclusion, deportation, or removal proceedings subsequent to their departure from the United States, but this does not preclude jurisdiction over motions filed by those who have been lawfully removed after the completion of immigration proceedings.

Analysis

The court analyzed the BIA's jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(d) and compared it to a similar regulation previously interpreted in Lin v. Gonzales. The court concluded that since Reynoso-Cisneros filed her motion to reopen after departing the United States under an exclusion order, she was eligible to have her motion considered on the merits.

The court analyzed the BIA's jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(d) and compared it to a similar regulation previously interpreted in Lin v. Gonzales. The court concluded that since Reynoso-Cisneros filed her motion to reopen after departing the United States under an exclusion order, she was eligible to have her motion considered on the merits.

Conclusion

The court granted the petition for review and remanded the case for the BIA to consider Reynoso-Cisneros' motion to reopen on the merits.

The court granted the petition for review and remanded the case for the BIA to consider Reynoso-Cisneros' motion to reopen on the merits.

Who won?

Maria Dolores Reynoso-Cisneros prevailed in the case because the court found that the BIA erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction over her motion to reopen.

Maria Dolores Reynoso-Cisneros prevailed in the case because the court found that the BIA erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction over her motion to reopen.

You must be