Jian Le Lin v. U.S. Attorney General
681 F.3d 1236
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Lin is a Chinese national who entered illegally in 1992 and was ordered removed after asylum denial in 1999.
- Lin’s BIA/removal orders were affirmed in 2002.
- In December 2010 Lin filed a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions and sought sua sponte reopening.
- Lin was removed on April 7, 2011; BIA later treated his motion to reopen as withdrawn due to departure.
- BIA relied on 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d) (departure bar) to divest jurisdiction; Lin petitioned for review.
- IIRIRA limits aliens to one motion to reopen, while also codifying an administrative departure bar that Congress later repealed for judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the departure bar conflict with IIRIRA’s one-motion right? | Lin contends the post-departure bar violates §1229a(c)(7)(A). | AG argues the regulation coheres with Congress’s overall structure. | Yes, it conflicts; the regulation impermissibly narrows the one-motion right. |
| Is a physical-presence requirement implied by IIRIRA’s structure? | Lin argues no geographic limitation is in IIRIRA’s text. | AG asserts limitations can be implied by regulatory history. | Yes; absence of presence requirement in statute implies support for motion regardless of location. |
| Does IIRIRA’s amendment scheme show Congress intended a right to reopen irrespective of departure? | Lin cites amendment to codify one motion to reopen and remove departure bar. | AG emphasizes codified limitations but not location-based restrictions. | Yes; amendment scheme supports right to file one motion regardless of presence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Prestol Espinal v. Att’y Gen., 653 F.3d 213 (3d Cir. 2011) (limits on motions to reopen support no departure-bar exclusion)
- Coyt v. Holder, 593 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2010) (holds no location-based restriction implied by IIRIRA)
- William v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 329 (4th Cir. 2007) (statutory structure supports right to reopen regardless of departure)
- Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2008) (statutory framework transforming motion to reopen from regulatory procedure)