Noel Reyes Mata v. Jeff Sessions
678 F. App'x 198
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Noel Reyes Mata, a Mexican national, was ordered removed in 2010; the BIA dismissed his appeal after his attorney failed to file an appellate brief.
- Mata filed an untimely motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel (attorney’s failure to file) and sought equitable tolling of the filing period; he also alleged hardship to his U.S. citizen children supporting cancellation of removal.
- The BIA denied the motion to reopen, finding Mata failed to show prejudice from counsel’s ineffectiveness because (1) his Texas assault conviction made him ineligible for cancellation of removal and (2) he failed to allege exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to qualifying relatives.
- Mata sought review in the Fifth Circuit; the Supreme Court later held the Fifth Circuit had jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen and remanded with instructions to address the merits.
- Subsequent Fifth Circuit authority (Lugo-Resendez, Gomez-Perez) undermined the BIA’s first ground: (a) equitable tolling can apply to motions to reopen, and (b) a Texas §22.01(a)(1) assault conviction is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude for cancellation-of-removal eligibility.
- On remand, the Fifth Circuit concluded Mata abandoned any challenge to the BIA’s hardship determination by inadequate briefing and therefore denied the petition to review the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen and of reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review BIA denial of motion to reopen | Fifth Circuit should review; Mata sought equitable tolling for ineffective assistance | Government had argued limited review; but Supreme Court held review exists | Court had jurisdiction (per Supreme Court) and proceeded to review on remand |
| Equitable tolling for untimely motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance | Mata: counsel’s failure to file brief warrants tolling; motion should be reopened | BIA: no prejudice shown so ineffective assistance did not justify tolling | Even assuming tolling is available, BIA found no prejudice because eligibility for relief not shown; denial affirmed on other grounds |
| Effect of Texas assault conviction on cancellation eligibility | Mata: after intervening precedent, his conviction does not bar cancellation | BIA: conviction disqualified him under §1229b(b)(1)(C) | Intervening Fifth Circuit cases (Gomez-Perez) undermine BIA’s conviction-based disqualification, but court did not reverse based on other grounds |
| Hardship showing for cancellation of removal | Mata: alleged hardship to U.S. citizen children supports reopening | BIA/Government: Mata failed to allege exceptional and extremely unusual hardship | Mata abandoned challenge to hardship finding by inadequate briefing; BIA’s denial on hardship ground affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150 (2015) (Supreme Court: Fifth Circuit has jurisdiction to review BIA denial of motion to reopen and remanded to address merits)
- Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2016) (motions to reopen are subject to equitable tolling)
- Gomez-Perez v. Lynch, 829 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2016) (Texas §22.01(a)(1) assault is not necessarily a crime involving moral turpitude for cancellation eligibility)
- Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830 (5th Cir. 2003) (issues not adequately briefed are abandoned)
- Posters ‘N’ Things, Ltd. v. United States, 511 U.S. 513 (1994) (court may treat inadequately briefed issues as abandoned)