Reynoso-Cisneros v. Gonzales
| Decision Date | 07 June 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-71803.,05-71803. |
| Citation | 491 F.3d 1001 |
| Parties | Maria Dolores REYNOSO-CISNEROS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before: HARRY PREGERSON, STEPHEN REINHARDT, and A. WALLACE TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Maria Dolores Reynoso-Cisneros, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her motion to reopen exclusion proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law, including an agency's determination of its own jurisdiction, de novo. See Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1215 (9th Cir.2005). We grant the petition for review and remand.
This case is governed by our recent decision in Lin v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 979 (9th Cir.2007). Lin was deported from the United States, re-entered unlawfully, and filed a motion to reopen his proceedings with an immigration judge ("IJ"). Id. at 980. The IJ denied the motion under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), which states "[a] motion to reopen or to reconsider shall not be made by or on behalf of a person who is the subject of removal, deportation, or exclusion proceedings subsequent to his or her departure from the United States." Id. We held that the regulation did not preclude jurisdiction over motions to reopen filed by petitioners, like Lin, who had been lawfully removed after the completion of immigration proceedings, and only barred motions filed by an individual "who departs the United States while he or she is the subject of removal . . . proceedings." Id. at 982 (internal citation omitted) (emphasis in original).
Here, Reynoso-Cisneros was placed in exclusion proceedings and deported. She then re-entered and filed a motion to reopen with the BIA, claiming that a change in law now made her eligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under former section 212 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. The BIA denied Reynoso-Cisneros' motion solely on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d), which states "[a] motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider shall not be made by or on behalf of a person who is the subject of exclusion, deportation, or removal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ovalles v. Holder
...reasoning to the BIA's post-departure bar in section 1003.2(d), as the Ninth Circuit did in Reynoso-Cisneros v. Gonzales. See 491 F.3d 1001, 1002 (9th Cir.2007). The Government argues that the Ninth Circuit in Lin and Reynoso-Cisneros misconstrued the meaning of sections 1003.23(b)(1) and 1......
-
Matter of Armendarez-Mendez
...(6th Cir. 2006); Singh v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 135, 140 (2d Cir. 2006). However, in Lin v. Gonzales, supra, and Reynoso-Cisneros v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1001, 1002 (9th Cir. 2007), the Circuit espoused an interpretation of the departure bar rule that departs substantially from our own. Furtherm......
-
Curen v. Fed. Crop Ins. Corp.
...Id. “[Courts] review questions of law, including an agency's determination of its own jurisdiction, de novo. ” Reynoso–Cisneros v. Gonzale s , 491 F.3d 1001, 1002 (9th Cir.2007) (citation omitted).III. DISCUSSION The Court finds that the one-year statute of limitations ran in 2004 with resp......
-
Singh v. Napolitano
...by regulation to a post-departure motion to reopen, see Lin v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir.2007); Reynoso-Cisneros v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1001, 1002 (9th Cir.2007), the BIA has rejected our analysis and held that it lacks authority to reopen proceedings once a non-citizen has left t......