Barczak v. Sessions, 700 F. App'x 78

Petitioner Andrezej Barczak, a Polish national, appealed the BIA’s April 4, 2016 decision affirming an IJ’s denial of his motion to rescind an in absentia removal order and to reopen proceedings.
Barczak had failed to appear at a removal hearing and moved within 180 days to rescind the in absentia order, claiming extreme fatigue/serious illness prevented his attendance.
He submitted no detailed medical records corroborating the alleged serious illness.
The IJ denied rescission, finding Barczak failed to show exceptional circumstances beyond his control; the BIA affirmed.
Barczak also sought sua sponte reopening; the agency denied it and the court considered whether it had jurisdiction to review that denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Barczak demonstrated "exceptional circumstances" to rescind an in absentia removal order	Barczak argued extreme fatigue/serious illness prevented appearance	Government argued lack of corroborating medical evidence and lack of circumstances beyond petitioner’s control	The court upheld agency denial: no exceptional circumstances shown due to insufficient medical evidence and lack of proof the failure was beyond his control
Whether the agency’s decision to deny rescission abused discretion	Barczak claimed agency misapplied law and should have rescinded	Government defended reasoned exercise of discretion under stringent standard	Court found no abuse of discretion; agency provided rational basis for denial
Whether the court has jurisdiction to review denial of sua sponte reopening	Barczak argued the totality of circumstances warranted sua sponte reopening and agency misapplied law	Government argued such denials are discretionary and not reviewable	Court dismissed review for lack of jurisdiction; no showing agency misperceived controlling law to warrant remand
Whether remand is required because the agency misperceived legal background	Barczak asserted legal error in agency’s approach	Government denied legal error; treated decision as discretionary	Court found no identifiable legal error and declined to remand

Xian Tuan Ye v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 446 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2006) (standard for reviewing IJ decisions supplemented by BIA)
Alrefae v. Chertoff, 471 F.3d 353 (2d Cir. 2006) (stringent standard and abuse-of-discretion framework for exceptional‑circumstances review)
Wei Guang Wang v. B.I.A., 437 F.3d 270 (2d Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for BIA decisions)
Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2006) (denials of sua sponte reopening generally not reviewable)
Mahmood v. Holder, 570 F.3d 466 (2d Cir. 2009) (limited remand exception where agency misperceived legal background)