Maricarmen Garcia Arredondo v. Loretta E. Lynch
824 F.3d 801
9th Cir.2016Background
- Maricarmen Arredondo, removable noncitizen, missed multiple immigration hearings; IJ ordered removal after she failed to appear for a February 13, 2012 hearing.
- She filed a motion to reopen claiming a car mechanical failure on the way to court prevented attendance; she explained she borrowed phones from strangers, had no phone numbers for counsel/court, and prepaid a mechanic $480 in cash.
- IJ found her affidavits lacking credibility for several reasons (invoice noncompliance with California regs, implausible conduct, failure to contact counsel/court, choice to prepay repair rather than use cash for transportation).
- BIA affirmed, holding she failed to corroborate her account and that, even if credited, the circumstances were not "exceptional" under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i).
- Ninth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion, accepted Arredondo’s affidavit as not inherently unbelievable, but held that mechanical failure plus her choices (leaving little travel time, taking longer route, prepaying repairs, not contacting counsel/court) do not amount to "exceptional circumstances."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether motion to reopen based on in absentia order should be granted for "exceptional circumstances" due to car breakdown | Arredondo: car overheated en route, no phone, solicited strangers, tow/mechanic delayed her; thus exceptional circumstances prevented appearance | Government/BIA: affidavit insufficiently corroborated; even if true, mechanical failure alone (plus choices) not "exceptional" under statute | Denied: mechanical failure coupled with avoidable decisions and lack of contact does not constitute exceptional circumstances |
| Whether the agency erred in discrediting Arredondo’s affidavits | Arredondo: affidavit not inherently unbelievable and should be accepted as true | IJ/BIA: inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, implausible conduct justified skepticism | Court: IJ/BIA erred to the extent they wholly disregarded affidavit as inherently unbelievable, but error was harmless because credited facts still fail statutory standard |
| Whether the totality of circumstances including merits of underlying relief required reopening | Arredondo: suggested prior substance (son’s dental needs) might weigh toward reopening | BIA: merits weak (treatment long since completed; son now adult) | Held: merits do not favor reopening; no unconscionable deportation result cited |
| Whether prepayment of car repair and route/timing choices negate claim of being beyond control | Arredondo: lacked phone, acted reasonably under stress | Government: had $500 cash and could have used it for transport; chose to prepay repair and left insufficient time | Held: such choices undermine claim of "exceptional circumstances"; they are less compelling than statutory examples |
Key Cases Cited
- Sharma v. INS, 89 F.3d 545 (9th Cir.) (motions to reopen not equivalent to showing "reasonable cause")
- Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir.) (agency abuses discretion when decision is arbitrary or contrary to law; examine totality including merits)
- Limsico v. INS, 951 F.2d 210 (9th Cir.) (affidavits must be accepted as true unless inherently unbelievable)
- Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770 (9th Cir.) (noted mechanical car failure may be beyond control but left question open)
- Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft, 298 F.3d 888 (9th Cir.) (Board must examine totality of circumstances)
- Magdaleno de Morales v. INS, 116 F.3d 145 (5th Cir.) (mechanical car failure alone not "exceptional circumstances")