Garfield Lawrence v. Loretta Lynch
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10991
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Garfield Lawrence, a Jamaican LPR, was ordered removed after convictions for marijuana distribution; the BIA affirmed the removal on December 4, 2012, starting the 90‑day clock to move to reopen.
- Lawrence was deported January 31, 2013. From Jamaica he had limited phone/internet access, moved several times, and had difficulty obtaining records and consistent legal assistance.
- In September 2013 Lawrence contacted the Post‑Deportation Human Rights Project; an attorney there identified a possible Moncrieffe claim and later referred Lawrence to CAIR. CAIR filed a motion to reopen on May 19, 2015 (well beyond 90 days), invoking Moncrieffe v. Holder.
- The BIA denied the motion as untimely, concluding Lawrence failed to show due diligence for equitable tolling and also denied sua sponte reopening as not presenting an exceptional situation.
- Lawrence petitioned for review, arguing the BIA applied the wrong equitable‑tolling standard and asking this Court to remand; the government contested jurisdiction and the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA applied the correct equitable‑tolling/due‑diligence standard | Lawrence: BIA required absolute rather than "reasonable" diligence and ignored record‑specific circumstances | Gov: BIA applied the proper reasonable/due diligence inquiry and found inadequate evidence of diligence | Court: BIA used the correct standard ("due/reasonable diligence") and did not abuse discretion in denying tolling |
| Whether this Court has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s equitable‑tolling factual conclusion | Lawrence: Court can review whether BIA applied the correct legal standard | Gov: Section 1252 bars review of factual determinations about removability and diligence | Court: Jurisdiction exists only for the narrow legal question of standard applied; not for simple factual disagreement about diligence |
| Whether the BIA should have reopened sua sponte | Lawrence: Even if untimely, BIA should exercise sua sponte authority given Moncrieffe claim | Gov: BIA’s decision not to reopen sua sponte is discretionary and unreviewable | Court: No jurisdiction to review sua sponte denial under circuit precedent (Mosere); claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the BIA failed to provide a reasoned explanation or ignored record evidence | Lawrence: BIA disregarded key evidence and failed to conduct individualized inquiry | Gov: BIA addressed communications problems and explained why evidence was insufficient | Court: BIA adequately considered and explained its conclusions; decision was reasoned and not arbitrary |
Key Cases Cited
- Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013) (Supreme Court decision creating the non‑aggravated felony argument relied on by petitioner)
- INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (1992) (motions to reopen reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and is fact‑sensitive)
- Kuusk v. Holder, 732 F.3d 302 (4th Cir. 2013) (equitable tolling applies to motions to reopen; standards for extraordinary circumstances)
- Tassi v. Holder, 660 F.3d 710 (4th Cir. 2011) (BIA must provide a reasoned explanation and not disregard important aspects of a claim)
- Mosere v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 397 (4th Cir. 2009) (BIA’s refusal to reopen sua sponte is unreviewable)
- Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable‑tolling diligence inquiry is individualized and fact‑intensive)