Immigration and Nationality Law Firm

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that Courts can review denials of Motions to reopen proceedings. The opinion, Kucana v. Holder will provide safeguards in judicial review of such motions and is a win for those seeking review of their cases on appeal.  It debunks the previous position that Courts lacked jurisdiction over discretionary decisions made by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

For those who are unfamiliar with removal proceedings, a removal case is initially decided by a US Immigration Judge.  The Immigration Judge may grant or deny the relief requested by the person being removed.  In that case, the person being removed (often called Respondent),  can either file a motion to reopen proceedings with the Judge who denied his or her case, or file a direct appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals.  (BIA).

In most cases, failure to appear will result in an order of removal being entered in absentia (as in this case).  The respondent ordered deported in absentia can file a Motion to reopen proceedings and the Immigration Judge would then decide if the Motion ought to be granted or denied, as matter of law and as a matter of discretion.    Some Courts (this case emanated from the Seventh Circuit) had taken the position that they lacked jurisdiction to review denials of such Motions decided by the Board of Immigration Appeals per (Real ID Act of 2005).    The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees in this new ruling written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.