Lewis v. Holder, 625 F.3d 65

Lewis, a Jamaica native and U.S. permanent resident since 1987, faced removal proceedings after convictions for theft-related offenses.
The IJ denied Lewis’s application for cancellation of removal on October 17, 2002; she timely appealed and checked Box 8 to indicate a future brief, but received a briefing schedule.
The BIA originally set a May 9, 2003 deadline for her brief; counsel sought and obtained a three-week extension; on May 29, 2003, counsel moved to withdraw citing lack of cooperation and communication.
On July 9, 2003, the BIA summarily dismissed the appeal for failure to file a brief, and granted the attorney’s withdrawal except for receipt of that order; the order was mailed to counsel, not to Lewis at her listed address.
In 2008–2009 Lewis (represented by new counsel) moved to reopen; the BIA issued a May 12, 2009 Reissued Decision denying the motion, noting deficient performance of prior counsel and tolling concerns under Matter of Compean.
The BIA found the July 9, 2003 order was reissued in an abundance of caution and Lewis then filed a petition for review within 30 days of the reissued decision, challenging the May 12, 2009 denial as to the merits of due process and counsel, prompting supplemental briefing on the right to counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does BIA reissuance restart review period?	Lewis contends reissuance created a new 30-day window to petition for review.	Government argues reissuance triggers a fresh petition as to the reissued decision.	Yes; reissuance creates a new 30-day review period.
Is Lewis's petition timely against the reissued decision?	Petition timely under the new 30-day period following reissuance.	Timeliness depends on the original filing window and any tolling; disputes arise over due process claims.	Timely as to the reissued May 12, 2009 decision.
Did the BIA's July 9, 2003 dismissal implicate due process rights to counsel?	Dismissal without effective counsel or adequate notice could violate due process.	Counsel’s withdrawal was properly authorized and the disposition based on lack of brief; no due process violation shown.	Issue to be addressed in supplemental briefing; not resolved on this record.

Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (U.S. Supreme Court 1995) (jurisdictional nature of timing to petition for review)
Firmansjah v. Ashcroft, 347 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2003) (BIA may reissue decisions and allow fresh petitions for review)
Lewis v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2007) (BIA reissuance creates fresh petition period)