MOTIONS TO REOPEN OR RECONSIDER IMMIGRATION …

1 January 2018 C-i MOTIONS TO REOPEN OR RECONSIDER IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS Table of Contents I. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MOTIONS TO REOPEN AND MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER .. 1 A. motion to REOPEN .. 1 B. motion to RECONSIDER .. 3 C. motion to Remand .. 4 D. motion to Reissue .. 4 E. Improperly Styled MOTIONS .. 5 II. JURISDICTION .. 5 A. Finality of the Underlying Order .. 8 B. Filing motion to REOPEN or RECONSIDER Not a Jurisdictional Prerequisite to Filing a Petition for Review .. 9 C. No Tolling of the Time Period to File Petition for Review .. 9 D. No Automatic Stay of Deportation or Removal ..10 1. Exception for In Absentia Removal or Deportation ..10 E. Consolidation ..10 F.

2 Departure from the United States ..10 III. STANDARD OF REVIEW ..11 A. Generally ..11 B. Full Consideration of All Factors ..13 January 2018 C-ii 1. Later-Acquired Equities ..14 C. Explanation of Reasons ..15 D. Irrelevant Factors ..16 E. Credibility Determinations ..16 IV. REQUIREMENTS FOR A motion TO REOPEN ..16 A. Supporting Documentation ..17 1. Exception ..17 B. Previously Unavailable C. Explanation for Failure to Apply for Discretionary Relief ..18 D. Prima Facie Eligibility for Relief ..19 E. Discretionary F. Failure to Depart Voluntarily ..20 G. Appeal of Deportation Order ..22 H. Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine ..22 V. TIME AND NUMERICAL LIMITATIONS ..23 A.

3 Generally ..23 1. Time Limitations ..23 2. Numerical Limitations ..25 B. Exceptions to the Ninety-Day/One- motion Rule ..26 1. In Absentia Orders ..26 a. Exceptional Circumstances ..26 January 2018 C-iii (i) Evidentiary Requirements ..27 (ii) Cases Finding Exceptional Circumstances ..27 (iii) Cases Finding No Exceptional Circumstances ..28 (iv) Arriving Late While IJ On Bench ..28 b. Improper Notice of Hearing ..29 c. Proper Notice Requirements ..30 (i) Presumption of Proper Notice ..30 (ii) Pre-IIRIRA Proceedings ..31 (A) OSCs ..31 (B) Hearing (iii) Removal Proceedings ..32 (iv) Notice to Counsel Sufficient ..34 (v) Notice to Juvenile Insufficient ..34 (vi) Notice to Applicant No Longer Residing in the United States.

4 34 2. Asylum and Withholding Claims ..35 3. Jointly-Filed MOTIONS ..36 4. Government MOTIONS Based on Fraud ..36 5. Movant in Custody ..37 6. Sua Sponte Reopening by the BIA ..37 VI. EQUITABLE TOLLING ..38 January 2018 C-iv A. Circumstances Beyond the Applicant s Control ..38 B. Fraudulent or Erroneous Attorney Conduct ..39 C. Due Diligence ..40 VII. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL ..41 A. Presented Through a motion to REOPEN ..41 B. Exhaustion and Proper Forum ..42 C. Standard of Review ..42 D. Requirements for Due Process Violation ..43 1. Constitutional Basis ..43 2. Counsel s Competence ..44 3. Prejudice ..45 a. Exception for In Absentia Orders ..46 E. The Lozada Requirements.

5 47 1. Exceptions ..47 F. Cases Discussing Ineffective Assistance of Counsel ..48 1. Cases Finding Ineffective Assistance ..48 2. Cases Rejecting Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims ..50 VIII. CASES ADDRESSING MOTIONS TO REOPEN FOR SPECIFIC RELIEF ..51 A. MOTIONS to REOPEN to Apply for Suspension of B. MOTIONS to REOPEN to Apply for Asylum and Withholding ..52 January 2018 C-v C. MOTIONS to REOPEN to Apply for Relief Under the Convention Against Torture ..53 D. MOTIONS to REOPEN to Apply for Adjustment of Status ..54 E. MOTIONS to REOPEN to Apply for Other Relief ..55 January 2018 C-1 MOTIONS TO REOPEN OR RECONSIDER IMMIGRATION PROCEEDINGS IIRIRA transformed MOTIONS to REOPEN from a regulatory to a statutory form of relief.

6 Dada v. Mukasey, 554 1, 14 (2008). For individuals in removal proceedings, MOTIONS to REOPEN and to RECONSIDER are governed by 8 1229a(c)(7) and (6) (formerly codified at 8 1229a(c)(6) and (5)). For deportation cases pending before the April 1, 1997 effective date of IIRIRA, MOTIONS to REOPEN or to RECONSIDER are governed by 8 (c) and (b) (formerly codified at 8 and ). I. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MOTIONS TO REOPEN AND MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER A. motion to REOPEN [E]very alien ordered removed also has a right to file one motion with the IJ or Board to REOPEN his or her removal proceedings. Dada v. Mukasey, 554 1, 4 5, 128 S. Ct. 2307, 171 L. Ed.

7 2d 178 (2008); see 1229a(c)(7)(A). Subject to exceptions .., that motion to REOPEN shall be filed within 90 days of the final removal order. 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). Finally, the BIA s regulations provide that, separate and apart from acting on the alien s motion , the BIA may REOPEN removal proceedings on its own motion or, in Latin, sua sponte at any time. 8 CFR (a) (2015). Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150, 2153 (2015). A motion to REOPEN is a traditional procedural mechanism in IMMIGRATION law with a basic purpose that has remained constant to give aliens a means to provide new information relevant to their cases to the IMMIGRATION authorities. Meza-Vallejos v.

8 Holder, 669 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (as amended); see also Oyeniran v. Holder, 672 800, 808 (9th Cir. 2012) ( motion to REOPEN alleges new facts bearing upon agency s earlier decision). A motion to REOPEN is based on factual grounds, and seeks a fresh determination based on newly discovered facts or a change in the applicant s circumstances since the time of the hearing. See 8 1229a(c)(7)(B) (removal proceedings); 8 (c); Oyeniran, 672 at 808; Ali v. Holder, 637 1025, 1031-32 (9th Cir. 2011); Iturribarria v. INS, 321 889, 895-96 (9th Cir. 2003); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 1176, 1180 January 2018 C-2 (9th Cir.)

9 2001) (en banc); see also Azarte v. Ashcroft, 394 1278, 1283 (9th Cir. 2005) (providing history of MOTIONS to REOPEN ), abrogated on other grounds by Dada v. Mukasey, 554 1, 19-21 (2008). The motion to REOPEN is an important safeguard intended to ensure a proper and lawful disposition of IMMIGRATION proceedings. Kucana v. Holder, 558 233, 242 (2010) (quoting Dada v. Mukasey, 554 1 (2008)); see also Chandra v. Holder, 751 1034, 1036 (9th Cir. 2014) (same). Whereas [a] motion to RECONSIDER seeks to correct alleged errors of fact or law, a motion to REOPEN .. is purely fact-based, seeking to present newly discovered facts or changed circumstances since a petitioner s hearing.

10 Doissaint v. Mukasey, 538 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, when the BIA commits legal error in a petitioner s direct appeal, the BIA cannot cure that error in a denial of the petitioner s motion to REOPEN . Id. at 1170-71 (the BIA, which erroneously deemed CAT claim abandoned on direct appeal, could not cure error on motion to REOPEN , because the legal basis for the IJ s denial of Petitioner s CAT claim the IJ s adverse credibility finding was not before the BIA on Petitioner s motion to REOPEN ). A petitioner s assertion of new legal arguments does not constitute new facts warranting reopening. Membreno v. Gonzales, 425 1227, 1229-30 (9th Cir.)