Jose Mejia v. Jefferson Sessions, III
881 F.3d 421
5th Cir.2018Background
- Mejia, a Honduran national, entered the U.S. in 2004 without inspection, received a Notice to Appear (NTA) without a hearing date, and was ordered removed in absentia in November 2004; the IJ found Mejia had not provided a valid address and therefore received no notice.
- Mejia was apprehended and removed to Honduras in December 2010, reentered the U.S. in May 2011, and was apprehended again in June 2014 when DHS reinstated his 2004 removal order.
- Mejia filed a motion to reopen in October 2014 (before he received a copy of the reinstatement, he asserts) seeking asylum, withholding, and CAT protection, alleging lack of notice in 2004 and materially changed country conditions in Honduras.
- The IJ denied the motion: (1) Mejia was not entitled to notice in 2004 because he failed to provide a valid address; (2) Mejia failed to show a material change in Honduran conditions; and (3) Mejia was not eligible for sua sponte reopening.
- The BIA affirmed; Mejia petitioned for review in the Fifth Circuit. The court dismissed or denied relief for lack of jurisdiction on several grounds and rejected Mejia’s due-process and other arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mejia can collaterally attack the 2004 removal order for lack of notice | Mejia says he lacked notice of the in absentia hearing because he did not receive hearing notice and did not provide a valid address | Government contends Mejia failed to exhaust remedies and did not contest removability previously, so no gross miscarriage of justice | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: Mejia cannot show a gross miscarriage of justice because he never contested removability in prior proceedings |
| Whether changed country conditions in Honduras excuse the late motion to reopen | Mejia argues country conditions worsened (more gang violence, government unable/unwilling to respond), so no time limit applies | Government relies on reinstatement statute (8 U.S.C. §1231(a)(5)) to bar reopening/review of reinstated removal orders | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: §1231(a)(5) bars reopening of reinstated orders; claim is factual (no jurisdiction under §1252(a)(2)(D)) |
| Whether the BIA abused discretion by not invoking sua sponte reopening | Mejia contends BIA mischaracterized facts and ignored claims, asserting due process violation | Government treats sua sponte reopening as discretionary and unreviewable; any due process claim is meritless because there is no liberty interest in a motion to reopen | Denied: court lacks review of discretionary sua sponte decision; Mejia’s due process argument fails because there is no liberty interest in reopening |
| Whether a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief or other procedural errors require reopening | Mejia claims prima facie eligibility and procedural violations warrant reopening | Government notes statutory deadlines and that Mejia offers no authority showing prima facie entitlement overrides time limits | Denied/forfeited: Mejia provides no authority; arguments forfeited or jurisdictionally barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150 (2015) (BIA may reopen sua sponte at any time)
- Ramirez-Molina v. Ziglar, 436 F.3d 508 (5th Cir. 2006) (collateral attack limits; gross miscarriage of justice requirement)
- Martinez v. Johnson, 740 F.3d 1040 (5th Cir. 2014) (§1231(a)(5) limits jurisdiction over reinstated orders)
- Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588 (5th Cir. 2007) (changed-country-conditions determinations are factual and not reviewable)
- Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 547 (5th Cir. 2006) (no liberty interest in motion to reopen; due process claim fails)