Mata v. Lynch

• Decision Date: 15 June 2015
• Docket Number: No. 14–185.,14–185.
• Citation: 576 U.S. 143,135 S.Ct. 2150,192 L.Ed.2d 225
• Parties: Noel Reyes MATA, Petitioner v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General.
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

576 U.S. 143
135 S.Ct. 2150
192 L.Ed.2d 225

Noel Reyes MATA, Petitioner
v.
Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General.

No. 14–185.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued April 29, 2015.
Decided June 15, 2015.

Mark C. Fleming, Boston, MA, for the petitioner.

Anthony A. Yang for the United States for the respondent supporting reversal and remand.

William R. Peterson, appointed by this Court as amicus curiae, supporting the judgment below.

Mark C. Fleming, Sydenham B. Alexander, III, Nicole Fontaine Dooley, Jeffery A. Habenicht, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, Jason D. Hirsch, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY, Claire M. Bergeron, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, Raed Gonzalez, Counsel of Record, Naimeh Salem, Sheridan Green, Bruce Godzina, Gonzalez Olivieri LLC, Houston, TX, Brian K. Bates, Reina & Bates, Houston, TX, Alexandre I. Afanassiev, Quan Law Group, Houston, TX, for Petitioner.

Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Counsel of Record, Joyce R. Branda, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Donald E. Keener, Patrick J. Glen, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

135 S.Ct. 2153

Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

An alien ordered to leave the country has a statutory right to file a motion to reopen his removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A). If immigration officials deny that

576 U.S. 145

motion, a federal court of appeals has jurisdiction to consider a petition to review their decision. See Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 242, 253, 130 S.Ct. 827, 175 L.Ed.2d 694 (2010). Notwithstanding that rule, the court below declined to take jurisdiction over such an appeal because the motion to reopen had been denied as untimely. We hold that was error.

I

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 66 Stat. 163, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., and its implementing regulations set out the process for removing aliens from the country. An immigration judge (IJ) conducts the initial proceedings; if he orders removal, the alien has the opportunity to appeal that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board). §§ 1229a(a)(1), (c)(5). "[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 U.S. 1, 4–5, 128 S.Ct. 2307, 171 L.Ed.2d 178 (2008) ; see § 1229a(c)(7)(A). Subject to exceptions not relevant here, 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 § 1003.2(a) (2015).

Petitioner Noel Reyes Mata is a Mexican citizen who entered the United States unlawfully almost 15 years ago. In 2010, he was convicted of assault under the Texas Penal Code. The federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) immediately initiated removal proceedings against him, and in August 2011 an IJ ordered him removed. See App. 6–13. Mata's lawyer then filed a notice of appeal with the BIA, indicating that he would soon submit a written brief stating grounds for reversing the IJ's decision. But the attorney never filed the brief, and the BIA dismissed the appeal in September 2012. See App. 4–5.

576 U.S. 146

More than a hundred days later, Mata (by then represented by new counsel) filed a motion with the Board to reopen his case. DHS opposed the motion, arguing in part that Mata had failed to file it, as the INA requires, within 90 days of the Board's decision. Mata responded that the motion was "not time barred" because his first lawyer's "ineffective assistance" counted as an "exceptional circumstance[ ]" excusing his lateness. Certified Administrative Record in No. 13–60253 (CA5, Aug. 2, 2013), p. 69. In addressing those arguments, the Board reaffirmed prior decisions holding that it had authority to equitably toll the 90–day period in certain cases involving ineffective representation. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 7; see also, e.g., In re Santa Celenia Diaz, 2009 WL 2981747 (BIA, Aug. 21, 2009). But the Board went on to determine that Mata was not entitled to equitable tolling because he could not show prejudice from his attorney's deficient performance; accordingly, the Board found Mata's motion untimely. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 7–8. And in closing, the Board decided as well that Mata's case was not one "that would warrant reopening as an exercise of" its sua sponte authority. Id., at 9 (stating that "the power to reopen on our own motion is not meant to be used as a general cure for filing defects" (internal quotation marks omitted)).

135 S.Ct. 2154

Mata petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to review the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen, arguing that he was entitled to equitable tolling. The Fifth Circuit, however, declined to "address the merits of Mata's equitable-tolling ... claim[ ]." Reyes Mata v. Holder, 558 Fed.Appx. 366, 367 (2014) (per curiam ). It stated instead that "[i]n this circuit, an alien's request [to the BIA] for equitable tolling on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel is construed as an invitation for the BIA to exercise its discretion to reopen the removal proceeding sua sponte ." Ibid. And circuit precedent held that courts have no jurisdiction to review the BIA's refusal to exercise its sua sponte power to

576 U.S. 147

reopen cases. See ibid. The Court of Appeals thus dismissed Mata's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Every other Circuit that reviews removal orders has affirmed its jurisdiction to decide an appeal, like Mata's, that seeks equitable tolling of the statutory time limit to file a motion to reopen a removal proceeding.¹ We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict. 574 U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 1039, 190 L.Ed.2d 907 (2015). And because the Federal Government agrees with Mata that the Fifth Circuit had jurisdiction over his appeal, we appointed an amicus curiae to defend the judgment below.² We now reverse.

II

As we held in Kucana v. Holder, circuit courts have jurisdiction when an alien appeals from the Board's denial of a motion to reopen a removal proceeding. See 558 U.S., at 242, 253, 130 S.Ct. 827. The INA, in combination with a statute cross-referenced there, gives the courts of appeals jurisdiction to review "final order[s] of removal." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) ; 28 U.S.C. § 2342. That jurisdiction, as the INA expressly contemplates, encompasses review of decisions refusing to reopen or reconsider such orders. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(6) ("[A]ny review sought of a motion to reopen or reconsider [a

576 U.S. 148

removal order] shall be consolidated with the review of the [underlying] order"). Indeed, as we explained in Kucana, courts have reviewed those decisions for nearly a hundred years; and even as Congress curtailed other aspects of courts' jurisdiction over BIA rulings, it left that authority in place. See 558 U.S., at 242–251, 130 S.Ct. 827.

Nothing changes when the Board denies a motion to reopen because it is untimely—nor when, in doing so, the Board rejects a request for equitable tolling. Under the INA, as under our century-old practice, the reason for the BIA's denial makes no difference to the jurisdictional issue. Whether the BIA rejects the alien's motion to reopen because it comes

135 S.Ct. 2155

too late or because it falls short in some other respect, the courts have jurisdiction to review that decision.

Similarly, that jurisdiction remains unchanged if the Board, in addition to denying the alien's statutorily authorized motion, states that it will not exercise its separate sua sponte authority to reopen the case. See supra, at 2153. In Kucana, we declined to decide whether courts have jurisdiction to review the BIA's use of that discretionary power. See 558 U.S., at 251, n. 18, 130 S.Ct. 827. Courts of Appeals, including the Fifth Circuit, have held that they generally lack such authority. See, e.g., Enriquez–Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246, 249–250 (C.A.5 2004) ; Tamenut v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1000, 1003–1004 (C.A.8 2008) (en banc) (per curiam ) (citing other decisions). Assuming arguendo that is right, it means only that judicial review ends after the court has evaluated the Board's ruling on the alien's motion. That courts lack jurisdiction over one matter (the sua sponte decision) does not affect their jurisdiction over another (the decision on the alien's request).

It follows, as the night the day, that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over this case. Recall: As authorized by the INA, Mata filed a motion with the Board to reopen his removal proceeding. The Board declined to grant Mata his proposed relief, thus conferring jurisdiction on an appellate

576 U.S....