Jose Euceda Hernandez v. Eric Holder, Jr.
738 F.3d 1099
9th Cir.2013Background
- Jose Miguel Euceda Hernandez, a Honduran national, conceded removability after applying for asylum; an IJ denied cancellation of removal in August 2004.
- He mailed a notice of appeal on the last day (Sept. 8, 2004); the Board received and filed it one day late and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Board told him to file motions to reopen with the immigration judge; Hernandez (pro se) repeatedly attempted to file with the Board and filed a motion to reopen with the Board in 2011 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Board applied its "place-of-filing" rule and refused to consider the motion, instructing him to refile with the IJ; Hernandez filed again with the Board and the Board issued the May 14, 2012 order maintaining lack of jurisdiction.
- Hernandez petitioned for review in the Ninth Circuit, which reviewed the Board's jurisdictional determination de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board's "place-of-filing" rule makes the Board lack jurisdiction to hear a motion to reopen filed with the Board instead of the IJ | Hernandez: § 1229a(c)(7) permits one motion to reopen and the statute does not limit place of filing; thus the Board cannot treat place of filing as jurisdictional | Government/Board: Under the Board's precedent, a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is not a "decision," so motions must be filed with the IJ; the place-of-filing rule limits Board jurisdiction | Court: The place-of-filing rule is a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule; the Board erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (agency interpretation of its own regulation controlling unless plainly erroneous)
- Judulang v. Holder, 565 U.S. 42 (2011) (agency policies must have discernible purpose)
- Union Pac. R.R. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 558 U.S. 67 (agency may not adopt rules that alter statutory jurisdiction)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (distinguishing jurisdictional rules from nonjurisdictional ones)
- Irigoyen-Briones v. Holder, 644 F.3d 943 (9th Cir.) (Board's timeliness rule is nonjurisdictional)
- Reynoso-Cisneros v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir.) (de novo review of agency's jurisdictional determination)