Bing Quan Lin v. U.S. Attorney General
881 F.3d 860
| 11th Cir. | 2018Background
- Lin, a Chinese national, entered the U.S. in 1991 (records show entry at Honolulu under name “Ping Chuan Lin” with an A-number); he subsequently filed an asylum application listing himself as “Lin, Bing Quan” and as having entered without inspection.
- Lin was ordered removed in absentia in 1997 after failing to appear; he filed a 1998 motion to reopen, which the IJ denied; he did not appeal that denial.
- In 2014 Lin’s son obtained an approved I-130 based on the A-number linked to Lin’s asylum file; Lin then filed a second motion to reopen (denied) and a 2016 third motion to reopen with a fingerprint analysis tying him to the 1991 Honolulu entry.
- The IJ denied the third motion as untimely, numerically barred, and for lack of new/unavailable evidence; the BIA affirmed, concluding the evidence and arguments were not new or previously unavailable and declined sua sponte reopening.
- Lin appealed to the Eleventh Circuit asserting due process violations, that the IJ’s brief handwritten denial lacked adequate reasoning, and that the BIA abused discretion in denying reopening; the court limited review to issues properly exhausted and reviewable under Mata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to hear constitutional and earlier-challenge claims | Lin: due-process defects (lack of notice, agency record search failures) and invalidity of original removal should be reviewable | Gov: Lin failed to exhaust these claims before the BIA; exhaustion is jurisdictional for these types of claims | Court: Dismissed those claims for lack of exhaustion; no jurisdiction to review unexhausted constitutional or prior-order claims |
| Sufficiency of IJ’s handwritten decision | Lin: IJ’s brief handwritten notes (and alleged missing “attached” decision) were inadequate and denied reasoned consideration | Gov: Lin never raised IJ-sufficiency to the BIA; unexhausted; IJ’s notes are enough for review | Court: Cannot review unexhausted IJ-sufficiency claims; but on merits IJ’s notes showed adequate consideration |
| Whether third motion to reopen was time-barred/number-barred and lacked new evidence | Lin: fingerprint report proved identity to 1991 parole/A-number and was new evidence justifying reopening | Gov: Motion untimely/second motion precluded; fingerprint evidence was obtainable earlier and thus not "previously unavailable" | Court: Reviewable under Mata; BIA did not abuse discretion — evidence was not shown to be previously unavailable and denial was reasonable |
| Whether BIA gave "reasoned consideration" to the motion | Lin: BIA relied on cursory IJ notes and failed to address the crux (improper issuance of second A-number) | Gov: BIA summarized facts, applied governing rules, and provided adequate reasoning | Held: Court reviews de novo and finds BIA provided reasoned consideration and adequate findings; no legal error |
Key Cases Cited
- Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150 (2015) (courts may review nondiscretionary statutory grounds for denial of motions to reopen)
- Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792 (11th Cir. 2016) (standard for reasoned consideration and exhaustion requirements)
- Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2006) (exhaustion is jurisdictional; review of subject-matter jurisdiction de novo)
- Sundar v. I.N.S., 328 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2003) (failure to raise issue before the BIA constitutes failure to exhaust)
- Gaksakuman v. United States Att’y Gen., 767 F.3d 1164 (11th Cir. 2014) (limits on reviewing earlier final orders and exhaustion of prior arguments)
- Li v. United States Att’y Gen., 488 F.3d 1371 (11th Cir. 2007) (BIA abused discretion where motion to reopen presented genuinely new country-condition evidence not previously available)
- Ali v. United States Att’y Gen., 443 F.3d 804 (11th Cir. 2006) (affirming BIA’s denial where petitioner could have obtained material earlier; strict evidentiary enforcement not an abuse)
- Avila-Santoyo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 713 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2013) (90-day deadline for motions to reopen is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule subject to equitable tolling)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (due-process inquiry requires showing deprivation of protected interest)