Dayami Caceres v. Loretta Lynch
672 F. App'x 433
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Caceres, a Cuban native and lawful permanent resident, was convicted in Texas (2005) of delivery of 200–400 grams of dihydrocodeinone and received ten years’ community supervision after deferred adjudication.
- DHS charged her as removable in 2009; she conceded removability and sought withholding/CAT relief before an IJ.
- In July 2012 the IJ denied relief, finding her Texas conviction a particularly serious crime (PSC) and rejecting CAT relief for lack of likelihood of torture.
- Caceres filed an untimely motion to reopen more than a year later; the IJ denied it as untimely and the BIA affirmed.
- The Fifth Circuit reviews the BIA’s denial of an untimely motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, and recent Fifth Circuit law recognizes equitable tolling for statutory motions to reopen.
- The BIA alternatively rejected Caceres’ claims on the merits: she failed to comply with Lozada requirements for ineffective-assistance claims and did not show prejudice; and the BIA properly applied the PSC analysis to her controlled-substance conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the untimely motion to reopen should have been equitably tolled | Caceres argued equitable tolling should apply to excuse delay | BIA concluded equitable tolling unavailable (based on precedent at the time) | Denied in part — court notes Lugo-Resendez permits equitable tolling but does not remand because BIA denied relief on merits |
| Whether Caceres can pursue ineffective-assistance-of-counsel (IAC) claim | Caceres claimed counsel was ineffective and sought reopening | Government argued she failed to satisfy Lozada procedures and showed no prejudice | Denied — strict Lozada compliance required in Fifth Circuit and no prejudice shown |
| Whether the Texas conviction is a Particularly Serious Crime (PSC) | Caceres argued BIA misapplied the PSC test and should have weighed favorable facts more | Government argued BIA properly used the categorical-elements inquiry then considered facts and circumstances | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to reweigh; BIA applied correct PSC framework and its balancing is not reviewable |
Key Cases Cited
- Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150 (2015) (jurisdictional rule on review of motions to reopen)
- Barrios-Canteraro v. Holder, 772 F.3d 1019 (5th Cir. 2014) (standard of review is abuse of discretion)
- Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2016) (statutory motions to reopen are subject to equitable tolling)
- Rodriguez-Manzano v. Holder, 666 F.3d 948 (5th Cir. 2012) (Fifth Circuit requires strict Lozada compliance)
- Hakim v. Holder, 628 F.3d 151 (5th Cir. 2010) (PSC analysis reviewable as question of law)
- Sung v. Keiser, 505 F.3d 372 (5th Cir. 2007) (court may not reweigh favorable factors the BIA considered)