Juarez-Munoz v. Sessions
16-2843
| 2d Cir. | Nov 17, 2017Background
- Petitioner Francisco Ronaldi Juarez-Munoz, a Mexican national, sought BIA review of an IJ decision denying his motions to reconsider and reopen removal proceedings.
- In October 2014 Juarez-Munoz accepted voluntary departure; that order became a final administrative order of removal 30 days later when his time to appeal to the BIA expired.
- He filed a motion to reconsider in February 2015 and a motion to reopen in April 2015.
- The IJ and BIA denied the motions as untimely; the agency also declined sua sponte reconsideration based on Juarez-Munoz’s concession of alienage.
- Juarez-Munoz argued his concession of alienage should be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment as fruit of an illegal seizure and sought reopening to request prosecutorial discretion under a program the government later rescinded.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the agency’s denial of reconsideration/reopening for abuse of discretion and denied the petition for review, dismissing the stay request as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of motions | Juarez-Munoz argued motions should be considered despite filing after final order | Government argued motions filed after statutory 30/90-day deadlines and thus untimely | Denied as untimely; voluntary departure order became final and deadlines ran |
| Agency refusal to reconsider sua sponte | Juarez-Munoz contended the BIA misperceived law when it declined sua sponte relief | Government maintained BIA has broad discretion and no legal error occurred | Court lacks jurisdiction to review denial of sua sponte reconsideration absent legal misperception; no misperception found |
| Fourth Amendment suppression of alienage concession | Juarez-Munoz contended his concession was product of illegal seizure and must be suppressed | Government argued concession resulted from a voluntary tactical choice to obtain voluntary departure | Held concession was an intervening act of free will (tactical decision), not fruit of illegality; suppression not warranted |
| Reopening to seek deferred action program | Juarez-Munoz sought reopening to request Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and LPRs | Government noted the program had been rescinded and no relief existed | Motion to reopen sought relief that no longer exists; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2005) (treating BIA decision as supplementing IJ for review)
- Jian Hui Shao v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2008) (standard for abuse-of-discretion review of motions to reopen/reconsider)
- Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion when decision lacks rational explanation)
- Mahmood v. Holder, 570 F.3d 466 (2d Cir. 2009) (no jurisdiction to review denial of sua sponte reopening absent legal error)
- Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2006) (same limitation on review of sua sponte actions)
- Vanegas-Ramirez v. Holder, 768 F.3d 226 (2d Cir. 2014) (concession of alienage may be admissible if an intervening act of free will)
- Thapa v. Gonzales, 460 F.3d 323 (2d Cir. 2006) (describing benefits of voluntary departure)
- Maldonado v. Holder, 763 F.3d 155 (2d Cir. 2014) (unsigned affidavit insufficient to trigger suppression hearing requirement)