Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Ordonez, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the U.S. without inspection in 2014 and was detained. She claims that she expressed fear of returning to Guatemala because of abuse she had suffered there. The Department of Homeland Security removed her, but less than two months later, Ordonez reentered with the youngest of her three sons, Gonzalez, then six years old. Border Patrol detained them. DHS initiated proceedings to restore the prior order of removal and served Gonzalez with notice under 8 U.S.C 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). While proceedings were pending, Ordonez sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, based on her alleged fear of abusive conduct by her former boyfriend. Gonzalez applied for derivative relief. An IJ and the BIA denied relief. While a petition was pending in the Third Circuit, the BIA granted a joint motion to reopen and reissued its decisions and orders without change. Ordonez did not file a petition for review in of the reissued decisions and orders. The Third Circuit held that, because the reissued decisions and orders did not alter the challenged decisions and orders it had jurisdiction over the petition, but denied that petition on the merits. View "Ordonez-Tevalan v. Att'y Gen. of the United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner Yang You Lee was a native and citizen of Thailand. He became a permanent resident of the United States in 1987 when he was five years old. In 2014, an immigration judge (IJ) sitting in Dallas found him removable for committing a crime of violence (a misdemeanor domestic assault) and denied his application for cancellation of removal. In the Board of Immigration Appeal's order dismissing Lee's appeal, the BIA noted Oklahoma City next to Lee's file number, apparently indicating Lee's final hearing was located there. Lee filed his petition for review in the Fifth Circuit, which transferred the petition to the Tenth Circuit sua sponte and without explanation. The Tenth Circuit concluded after review that venue was proper with the Fifth Circuit, and transferred this case back to that court for further proceedings. View "Lee v. Lynch" on Justia Law

After Mata, an unlawful alien, was convicted of assault in a Texas court, an Immigration Judge ordered him removed to Mexico. Mata’s attorney filed notice of appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), but never filed a brief; the appeal was dismissed. Acting through different counsel, Mata moved to reopen his removal proceedings, 8 U.S.C. 229a(c)(7)(A). Acknowledging that he had missed the 90-day deadline for such motions, Mata argued that his previous counsel’s ineffective assistance was an exceptional circumstance entitling him to equitable tolling. The BIA dismissed the motion as untimely and declined to reopen Mata’s removal proceedings sua sponte based on its separate regulatory authority. The Fifth Circuit construed Mata’s equitable tolling claim as a request that the BIA exercise its regulatory authority to reopen the proceedings sua sponte, and, because its precedent forbids review of BIA decisions not to exercise that authority, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed. A court of appeals has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s rejection of an alien’s motion to reopen. Nothing about that jurisdiction changes where the BIA rejects a motion as untimely, or when it rejects a motion requesting equitable tolling of the time limit, or when the denial also contains a separate decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority. If Mata is not entitled to relief on the merits, the correct disposition is to take jurisdiction and affirm the BIA’s denial of his motion. A federal court has a “virtually unflagging obligation” to assert jurisdiction where it has that authority; recharacterizing pleadings cannot be used to sidestep the judicial obligation to assert jurisdiction. View "Mata v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Ernest McKenzie’s Canadian birth certificate listed the wrong birth date. Because he used that birth certificate to become a naturalized United States citizen, his United States Certificate of Naturalization also listed the wrong birth date. After he was naturalized, he got his birth certificate corrected; he tried to amend his naturalization certificate so that his paperwork listed the correct date. Relying on 8 C.F.R. 334.16(b) (2011) to establish the district court’s jurisdiction, he filed suit requesting that the district court order United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to issue a naturalization certificate with his correct date of birth. "The request seems fair and simple enough," but the Tenth Circuit could not help: "With limited exceptions not applicable here, Congress has withdrawn jurisdiction over naturalizations from the district courts. In addition, the district court lacked jurisdiction because Dr. McKenzie’s invocation of 334.16(b) is not a colorable claim." The Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of this action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). View "McKenzie v. US Citizenship & Immigration" on Justia Law