Freddie Castillo v. Loretta Lynch
653 F. App'x 800
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Freddie Balmore Castillo filed a petition for review after the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied his motion to reconsider the BIA’s denial of his untimely motion to reopen removal proceedings.
- Castillo requested that the BIA exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen the proceedings; the BIA declined and then denied his motion to reconsider that refusal.
- Castillo argued the BIA’s refusal deprived him of due process by denying a hearing on his cancellation-of-removal application and contended the court should review the BIA’s discretionary decision.
- He also argued (alternatively) that equitable tolling should excuse his untimely filing of the motion to reopen.
- The Fifth Circuit evaluated its jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision and whether equitable tolling applied or had been properly raised below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review BIA’s refusal to exercise sua sponte reopening | BIA’s denial should be reviewable | BIA’s sua sponte reopening is discretionary and not reviewable | No jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of sua sponte reopening |
| Due process claim from denial of sua sponte reopening | Denial violated due process by withholding a merits hearing on cancellation | Castillo received a full and fair immigration hearing; discretionary relief not a protected property/liberty interest | Due process claim rejected; no protected right to discretionary relief |
| "Gross miscarriage of justice" exception to jurisdiction | Exception restores jurisdiction here | No authority shows exception applies to BIA’s refusal to reopen; Castillo didn’t show such a miscarriage | Exception not recognized/applied; jurisdiction not restored |
| Equitable tolling of time to file motion to reopen | Equitable tolling should excuse untimeliness | Castillo did not preserve or adequately argue equitable tolling before BIA and failed to carry burden | Court did not reach tolling on the merits; Castillo failed to show entitlement or to have properly raised it |
Key Cases Cited
- Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246 (5th Cir.) (BIA’s sua sponte reopening decision is discretionary and not subject to review)
- Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433 (5th Cir.) (discretionary immigration relief is not a liberty or property interest triggering due process protection)
- Ramirez-Molina v. Ziglar, 436 F.3d 508 (5th Cir.) (addressed collateral challenges to reinstatement of prior removal orders)
- Lara v. Trominski, 216 F.3d 487 (5th Cir.) (considered jurisdiction over collateral challenges to removal orders)
- Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150 (2015) (Court expressed no opinion on whether immigration statutes permit equitable tolling)
- Stroman v. Thaler, 603 F.3d 299 (5th Cir.) (petitioner bears burden to establish entitlement to equitable tolling)
Outcome: Petition for review DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction.