MATOS-SANTANA v. Holder
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22098
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Matos-Santana is a native and citizen of the Dominican Republic who entered the United States in 1982 and became a lawful permanent resident.
- He pled guilty to second-degree robbery and served eleven months in prison; he later pled guilty to auto-stripping in the third degree and received a three-year probation.
- In 2003, after traveling abroad, DHS denied readmission due to the robbery conviction being a crime of moral turpitude.
- Removal proceedings ensued; the IJ denied a § 1182(c) waiver and cancellation of removal in 2003, and the BIA affirmed without opinion; the order became final and he was removed in 2004.
- Matos-Santana later invoked Padilla v. Kentucky to contend his auto-stripping conviction should be vacated, potentially restoring eligibility for a waiver.
- On June 24, 2010, he moved the BIA to reopen to attack the auto-stripping conviction; the BIA denied as untimely and lacking sua sponte relief, leading to judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion to reopen was timely | Matos-Santana argues Padilla undermines the conviction and warrants reopening. | BIA held the motion untimely under § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). | Motion time-barred; BIA did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether the BIA properly exercised sua sponte authority to reopen | BIA should invoke sua sponte authority to consider untimely Padilla claim. | BIA may decline sua sponte relief; petitioner failed to pursue collateral attack in state court. | BIA's refusal to exercise sua sponte authority affirmed; court lacks jurisdiction to review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guerrero-Santana v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 90 (1st Cir. 2007) (motions to reopen discouraged to protect finality and efficiency)
- Raza v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 125 (1st Cir. 2007) (finality interests in removal proceedings)
- INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314 (U.S. 1991) (abuse of discretion standard in reviewing BIA decisions)
- Vaz Dos Reis v. Holder, 606 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2010) (substantial evidence for factual findings; de novo review of legal conclusions)
- Peralta v. Holder, 567 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2009) (agency discretion in sua sponte reopenings)
- Neves v. Holder, 613 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2010) (unreviewability of agency's sua sponte decision in some contexts)
- Gouveia v. INS, 980 F.2d 814 (1st Cir. 1992) (criminal convictions cannot be collaterally attacked in immigration proceedings)
- Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (U.S. 1994) (collateral attacks in federal sentencing contexts)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, U.S. , 130 S. Ct. 1473 (U.S. 2010) (ineffective assistance for failure to inform about deportation risk)