Contreras-Bocanegra v. Holder
678 F.3d 811
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- En banc rehearing to assess validity of the post-departure bar regulation 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d) after INA 1996 amendments.
- IIRIRA codified a statutory right to file one motion to reopen under § 1229a(c)(7) and removed departure as a blanket bar on review.
- Regulation imposes a geographic/post-departure limitation on the motion to reopen despite the statutory right.
- Rosillo-Puga (and Mendiola) previously upheld the bar in the circuit; subsequent circuits have invalidated it.
- Contreras-Bocanegra filed a timely motion to reopen from abroad based on ineffective assistance of counsel; Board denied relying on the post-departure bar.
- Court overrules Rosillo-Puga and holds that the post-departure bar contravenes Congress’s clear statutory right to file a motion to reopen under § 1229a(c)(7).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 1003.2(d) conflict with § 1229a(c)(7)? | Contreras argues the bar unlawfully restricts the statutory right to reopen. | Government contends regulation is a valid Chevron step-one interpretation. | Yes; § 1003.2(d) conflicts with § 1229a(c)(7). |
| Does Congress intend to allow reopened motions from abroad despite location restrictions? | Contreras asserts Congress intended rights irrespective of departure. | Government relies on agency interpretation and past practice. | Yes; Congress intended a right to file one motion to reopen regardless of departure. |
| Was Rosillo-Puga correctly decided under Chevron step one? | Contreras seeks overrule; Rosillo-Puga misread Congress’s intent. | Rosillo-Puga followed Chevron step one given ambiguity in statute. | Overruled; Rosillo-Puga and Mendiola are repudiated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosillo-Puga v. Holder, 580 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2009) (post-departure bar invalid under Chevron in circuit split (overruled))
- Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2008) (statutory right to file one motion to reopen transforms from regulatory procedure)
- Prestol Espinal v. Att’y Gen., 653 F.3d 213 (3d Cir. 2011) (post-departure bar invalid under Chevron)
- Martinez Coyt v. Holder, 593 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2010) (post-departure bar invalid under Chevron)
- Pruidze v. Holder, 632 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2011) (Union Pacific guidance; agency cannot contract jurisdiction)
- Luna v. Holder, 637 F.3d 85 (2d Cir. 2011) (post-departure bar invalid under Chevron)
- Marin-Rodriguez v. Holder, 612 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2010) (post-departure bar invalid under Chevron)
- William v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 329 (4th Cir. 2007) (initial circuit split on post-departure bar)