Abreu-Nunez v. Attorney General of United States of America, 011119 FED3, 18-1615

Docket Nº:18-1615
Opinion Judge:BIBAS, Circuit Judge.
Party Name:FATIMA ABREU-NUNEZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent
Judge Panel:Before: AMBRO, BIBAS, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
Case Date:January 11, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

FATIMA ABREU-NUNEZ, Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

No. 18-1615

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

January 11, 2019

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on January 10, 2019

On Petition for Review of a Decision of the United States Department of Justice Board of Immigration Appeals (A096-207-088) Immigration Judge: Rosalind K. Malloy

Before: AMBRO, BIBAS, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges

OPINION [*]

BIBAS, Circuit Judge.

The Board of Immigration Appeals has unfettered discretion not to reopen proceedings sua sponte. We normally lack jurisdiction to review such denials. But there are two exceptions, only one of which matters here: we would have jurisdiction if the Board were to implement a rule, policy, or settled course of action that meaningfully limited its discretion. But it has never done so. So we will dismiss the petition for review.

In 2008, the Board ordered Fatima Abreu-Nunez to leave the United States voluntarily or be removed. But she did not leave, nor was she removed. Years later, her daughter, a U.S. citizen, successfully filed an immigration petition on her mother's behalf. So Abreu-Nunez asked the Board to reopen her case sua sponte and to adjust her status, arguing that she is now eligible for lawful permanent residence. The Board denied her motion, reasoning that "becoming potentially eligible for adjustment [of status] is common," not an exceptional circumstance that justifies reopening. AR 3. Now Abreu-Nunez petitions for review of that denial.

The Board has discretion to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). When the Board decides not to do so, we lack jurisdiction to review those decisions, subject to two exceptions. Sang Goo Park v. Att'y Gen., 846 F.3d 645, 651-52 (3d Cir. 2017). One of those is when the Board "has limited its discretion via a policy, rule, settled course of...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP