Haydee Rodriguez Vega v. U.S. Attorney General
701 F. App'x 862
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Haydee Vega, a Costa Rican national, overstayed a nonimmigrant visa and was placed in removal proceedings; she sought cancellation of removal based on hardship to her U.S. citizen child.
- An IJ denied cancellation, the BIA dismissed her appeal and denied reconsideration; this Court previously dismissed Vega’s petition challenging that denial.
- Vega later filed an untimely motion to reopen, asserting new eligibility for Immediate Relative status based on a naturalized son’s petition.
- The BIA denied the motion as time-barred and found no basis to exercise its regulatory authority to reopen the case sua sponte.
- Vega petitioned for review, arguing the court has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen sua sponte and raising due process and separation-of-powers claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review BIA refusal to reopen sua sponte | Vega: Court may review BIA’s refusal to reopen sua sponte for abuse of discretion | Government: BIA’s decision not to sua sponte reopen is discretionary and not reviewable | Court: No jurisdiction to review refusal to exercise sua sponte reopening authority (prior precedent controls) |
| Timeliness of motion to reopen | Vega: Motion untimely but BIA could reopen sua sponte | Government: Motion untimely and no exception applies; sua sponte reopening discretionary | Court: Motion untimely; BIA properly treated it as time-barred; refusal to reopen is discretionary |
| Due process challenge to non-reviewability | Vega: Denial of review of discretionary relief is arbitrary and violates due process | Government: Discretionary relief does not create a protected liberty or property interest | Court: Claim not colorable; no due process interest in discretionary relief |
| Separation-of-powers claim | Vega: BIA procedures limit judicial oversight and raise separation concerns | Government: BIA’s procedures are regulatory protections implemented by the Attorney General, not a congressional restriction of judicial review | Court: Separation-of-powers argument not colorable; no jurisdiction to review on that basis |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (establishes reopening authority derives from Attorney General regulations)
- Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir.) (BIA reopening is discretionary; review for abuse of discretion where applicable)
- Butka v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 827 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir.) (no jurisdiction to review BIA refusal to sua sponte reopen)
- Lenis v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 525 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir.) (supports nonreviewability of sua sponte reopening refusal)
- Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 482 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir.) (court retains jurisdiction over colorable constitutional claims in removal proceedings)
- Scheerer v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 513 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir.) (no due process protection in discretionary immigration relief)
- United States v. Archer, 531 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir.) (panel bound by circuit precedent unless overruled en banc or by Supreme Court)