Mata v. Lynch

Supreme Court of the United States · 2015 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsJurisdictionImmigrationMotions to ReopenBIAmotion to reopenequitable tollingsua sponte reopening

Facts

Mata, a Mexican citizen who had entered the United States unlawfully, was ordered removed after an assault conviction in Texas. His lawyer filed a notice of appeal to the BIA from the immigration judge's removal order but never filed the promised brief, and the BIA dismissed the appeal. More than 90 days later, represented by new counsel, Mata filed a statutory motion to reopen and argued that ineffective assistance by prior counsel justified equitable tolling of the filing deadline. The BIA denied the motion as untimely after finding Mata was not entitled to equitable tolling, and it separately declined to reopen the case sua sponte.

Issue

Does a court of appeals have jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of an alien's statutory motion to reopen when the BIA denies the motion as untimely and rejects the alien's equitable tolling argument, even though the BIA also declines to reopen the case sua sponte?

Rule

A court of appeals has jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of a statutory motion to reopen a removal proceeding. That jurisdiction does not disappear because the BIA denied the motion as untimely, rejected equitable tolling, or also made a separate refusal to exercise sua sponte reopening authority; the jurisdictional question is distinct from whether the alien's request has merit.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, an immigration judge ordered Elena Cruz removed. Four months later, Cruz filed a motion to reopen with the Board under the statutory reopening provision, arguing that severe attorney neglect justified equitable tolling of the 90-day deadline; the Board denied the motion as untimely and also stated that it would not reopen the case on its own motion.

If Cruz petitions the court of appeals for review, what is the best jurisdictional analysis?

Explanation. A court of appeals has jurisdiction to review the Board's denial of a statutory motion to reopen. Under the majority opinion, that jurisdiction does not disappear because the Board denied the motion as untimely, rejected equitable tolling, or also refused sua sponte reopening. Jurisdiction turns on the nature of the decision denying the statutory motion, not on the Board's reasons. (Derived from Mata v. Lynch (n.d.).)