Alieu Jatta v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III
698 F. App'x 818
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Jatta, a Gambian national, entered the U.S. in 2009 as a visitor and conceded removability in 2011; granted pre-conclusion voluntary departure instead of removal.
- March 2011: Jatta filed a first motion to reopen claiming changed circumstances (his uncle had asylum); IJ and BIA denied for lack of evidence and failure to show prima facie eligibility for asylum; Jatta’s untimely petition for review was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- August 2014: Jatta’s second motion to reopen asserted marriage to a U.S. citizen and an approved I-130; IJ denied as time- and number-barred and for failure to attach an adjustment application and to substantiate the marriage; Jatta did not appeal.
- January 2015: Jatta’s third motion to reopen (nearly identical to the second) again sought reopening based on his marriage and approved I-130; IJ treated it as a request for sua sponte reopening and denied it; BIA dismissed the appeal.
- BIA held the motion was time- and number-barred and that Jatta presented insufficient evidence to justify discretionary sua sponte reopening; Jatta challenged only the BIA’s refusal to exercise sua sponte authority and alleged a due-process violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA abused discretion in denying motion to reopen | Jatta argued he was eligible for adjustment of status based on an approved I-130 and thus denial violated due process | BIA/IJ argued motion was time- and number-barred and lacked required evidence; sua sponte reopening discretionary | Petition abandoned challenge to time/number bar; court lacks jurisdiction to review BIA’s refusal to exercise sua sponte authority; petition denied in part and dismissed in part |
| Whether BIA must exercise sua sponte authority to reopen when I-130 approved | Jatta contended approved petition and application constituted grounds for reopening | BIA maintained sua sponte reopening is discretionary and Jatta did not substantiate eligibility or extraordinary circumstances | Court held sua sponte reopening committed to BIA’s unfettered discretion and not reviewable |
| Whether BIA violated due process by denying reopening | Jatta claimed denial of reopening despite bona fide adjustment application violated due process | BIA argued denial was discretionary and procedural bars applied | Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over due-process claim tied to sua sponte denial |
| Whether IJ/BIA erred in analyzing eligibility for adjustment | Jatta argued they failed to fully analyze his eligibility | BIA/IJ pointed to incomplete application, lack of evidence of marriage, and statutory/time limits | Court treated claim as part of sua sponte refusal and therefore unreviewable; procedural grounds abandoned |
Key Cases Cited
- Harmon v. Holder, 758 F.3d 728 (6th Cir. 2014) (BIA decision reviewed as final agency decision; IJ reviewed to extent BIA adopted it)
- Tapia-Martinez v. Gonzales, 482 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for denial of motion to reopen is abuse of discretion)
- Hih v. Lynch, 812 F.3d 551 (6th Cir. 2016) (failure to address procedural grounds constitutes abandonment of challenge)
- Rais v. Holder, 768 F.3d 453 (6th Cir. 2014) (BIA’s sua sponte authority to reopen is committed to its unfettered discretion and not subject to judicial review)
- Barry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 721 (6th Cir. 2008) (same principle regarding non-reviewability of BIA sua sponte reopening)