Bruno Rodriguez-Manzano v. Eric Holder, Jr.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 389
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Rodriguez-Manzano, an El Salvadoran citizen, faced a deportation order issued in absentia after failing to appear at a 1988 hearing.
- His initial counsel Ramos admitted the charges and sought asylum; Ramos later left the U.S., affecting Rodriguez-Manzano's notice.
- Rodriguez-Manzano sought to reopen arguing Ramos's ineffective assistance; he first complied with Lozada’s three-part test but was denied by the BIA.
- The BIA initially held the motion to reopen timely but denied on Lozada grounds; Rodriguez-Manzano then sought reconsideration, attaching a bar complaint against Ramos.
- The BIA acknowledged Lozada compliance but denied reconsideration, requiring a due diligence pursuit that the court later found improper.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of the first motion to reopen but reversed and remanded regarding the denial of the motion for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lozada compliance warranted reopening | Rodriguez-Manzano argued Lozada satisfied; timely motion to reopen should be granted. | BIA required Lozada compliance but denied due to diligence issues and timing concerns. | Affirmed denial of motion to reopen for Lozada noncompliance. |
| Whether due diligence requirement is proper for Lozada motions | BIA abused discretion by imposing due diligence not in Lozada. | BIA can require diligence given DOJ precedents and timing considerations. | Reversed; BIA abused discretion by imposing due diligence. |
| Jurisdiction and applicability of post-1992 regulations to pre-1992 proceedings | Proceedings commenced in 1987; pre-1992 rules apply; court has jurisdiction. | Ramos-Bonilla and current regs limit review, potentially stripping jurisdiction. | Court has jurisdiction to review pre-1992 motion to reopen. |
| Effect of BIA’s treatment of Cruz Garcia precedent | BIA should follow Cruz Garcia, which barred timing restrictions for pre-1992 cases. | BIA may interpret precedents flexibly under evolving regulatory regime. | BIA abused its discretion by ignoring Cruz Garcia precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lozada, Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988) (three-part test for ineffective-assistance claims in reopening)
- Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487 (5th Cir. 2000) (affects Lozada requirements for reopening)
- Williams-Igwonobe v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 453 (5th Cir. 2006) (reasonable cause standard for in absentia hearings)
- In re Cruz Garcia, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1155 (BIA 1999) (pre-1992 proceedings not subject to post-1992 timing rules)
- Ramos-Bonilla v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2008) (regulatory timing limits may deprive judicial review; sua sponte authority discussed)
- Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 341 (5th Cir. 2002) (standard of review for BIA decisions on immigration matters)