Chehazeh v. Attorney General of United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 546
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Chehazeh, a Syrian national, entered the U.S. in 2000 on a nonimmigrant visa and sought asylum.
- An Immigration Judge granted asylum and withholding of removal and CAT relief; the BIA later dismissed the INS appeal in 2004.
- In 2007 ICE moved to reopen Chehazeh’s removal proceedings on alleged fraud and national-security concerns.
- On December 13, 2007, the BIA sua sponte reopened proceedings and remanded for a new hearing before a different IJ due to alleged bias and other concerns.
- Chehazeh filed a district court petition in November 2009 seeking habeas, mandamus, declaratory relief, and APA review; the district court dismissed in 2010 for lack of custody.
- The Third Circuit held the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and could review under the APA, and remanded to address whether the reopening was warranted by an exceptional situation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to review the BIA reopening decision. | Chehazeh argues §1331 and the APA authorize review. | G isn’t explicit here; government contends preclusion by REAL ID Act. | Yes; district court jurisdiction exists under §1331 and APA. |
| Whether §1252(b)(9) precludes review when no final removal order exists. | Chehazeh not seeking review of a final removal order. | §1252(b)(9) precludes habeas or non-reviewable actions. | §1252(b)(9) does not preclude review here. |
| Whether §1252(g) precludes review of BIA reopening actions. | Chehazeh’s claim arises from BIA reopening, not prosecutorial discretion. | §1252(g) precludes certain deportation-related actions. | §1252(g) does not bar review of a reopening decision. |
| Whether the BIA reopening decision is a final agency action subject to collateral order review. | Reopening is effectively final and reviewable as collateral order. | Collateral review is limited; typically only for final orders. | Yes; collateral order doctrine applies; reopening is reviewable. |
| Whether the BIA’s decision to reopen was justified by an exceptional situation. | Record shows potential exceptional circumstances warranting reopening. | Record insufficient to conclude exceptional circumstances. | Remand to develop the record to assess exceptional circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smriko v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 279 (3d Cir.2004) (APA review in immigration matters when no preclusive statute)
- Calle-Vujiles v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 472 (3d Cir.2003) (non-review of BIA denial to sua sponte reopen)
- Quarantillo v. Attorney General, 301 F.3d 109 (3d Cir.2002) (agency policy limits on reopening; review for abuse)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (limits on review of agency discretion; exceptional situations)
- Cruz v. Attorney General, 452 F.3d 240 (3d Cir.2006) (remand when uncertain if BIA granted or denied exceptionally)
- Kumarasamy v. Attorney General, 453 F.3d 169 (3d Cir.2006) (REAL ID Act review scope; consolidation of review)
- St. Cyr (INS v. St. Cyr), 533 U.S. 289 (2001) (scope of judicial review under §1252(b))
- Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471 (1999) (limits of §1252(g) and prosecutorial discretion)
- Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 (2006) (collateral order review; exceptional public ends)
- Duvall v. Attorney General, 436 F.3d 382 (3d Cir.2006) (due process concerns re: relitigating issues in immigration)