Dominguez-Gutierrez v. Garland, 24-9547

Enrique Dominguez, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident in 1981.
In 1996, he was convicted in Colorado for possession of a controlled substance, leading to his removal order in 1998 after being found removable as an aggravated felon.
Dominguez waived his right to appeal the original removal and was later removed twice more after unlawfully reentering the U.S.; each time, the original removal order was reinstated.
He subsequently filed three separate motions to reopen removal proceedings, citing ineffective assistance and seeking relief under INA § 212(c) and other grounds; all motions were denied as untimely and/or barred by statute.
The most recent (third) motion was denied by the BIA in June 2024 for being untimely, numerically barred, and without exception; Dominguez filed this pro se petition for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness & Repetitive Filing	Equitable tolling should apply; prior counsel was ineffective.	Motion is untimely, third such filing, not allowed by statute.	Motion was untimely and numerically barred; no exception applies.
Reinstatement Bar	Should be eligible to reopen despite illegal reentry.	Illegal reentry after removal order reinstates and forecloses relief.	Reinstatement statute bars reopening or review and eligibility for relief.
Ineffective Assistance & Equitable Tolling	Entitled to relief for counsel's failures; deadlines should be tolled.	Claims already considered and rejected; statutory bars remain.	No abuse of discretion by BIA; prior claims do not warrant reopening.
BIA’s Discretion (Sua Sponte)	Exceptional circumstances justify exercise of sua sponte power.	No exceptional circumstances; statutory ineligibility for relief.	No exceptional circumstances; BIA rightfully did not reopen.

Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30 (2006) (reinstatement statute applies to all illegal reentrants and bars reopening or review)