Krasniqi v. Barr, 18-65

Agron Krasniqi filed a third motion to reopen removal proceedings in August 2017, more than 14 years after the BIA’s May 2003 dismissal of his appeal.
The motion was therefore both time-barred (over the 90-day limit) and numerically barred (more than one prior motion).
Krasniqi asserted eligibility to adjust status based on marriage as a basis for reopening.
The BIA declined to reopen sua sponte, concluding there was no "exceptional situation" warranting exercise of its discretionary authority.
The Second Circuit reviews denial of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion but lacks jurisdiction to review a refusal to reopen sua sponte except where the BIA misperceived the governing law.
The court found no legal misperception by the BIA and dismissed Krasniqi’s petition for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying Krasniqi's time- and number-barred motion to reopen	Krasniqi argued his marriage-based adjustment eligibility justified reopening	Government emphasized the motion was untimely and numerically barred with no applicable exception	Denied; court lacks jurisdiction to review BIA's discretionary denial of reopening and found no basis to remand
Whether the BIA should have exercised sua sponte authority to reopen based on exceptional circumstances	Krasniqi argued adjustment eligibility and hardships warranted sua sponte reopening	Government argued sua sponte reopening is reserved for exceptional situations and none existed here	Denied; BIA reasonably concluded no exceptional circumstances and did not misperceive the law

Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2006) (denial of sua sponte reopening is generally unreviewable discretionary act)
Rashid v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2008) (discussing time-and-number bars and exceptions to motion-to-reopen deadlines)
Mahmood v. Holder, 570 F.3d 466 (2d Cir. 2009) (remand appropriate only if BIA misperceived legal background and thought reopening would necessarily fail)