Pruidze v. Holder
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2102
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Pruidze, a lawful permanent resident, applied for admission in 2004 but was denied due to an inadmission for a state drug conviction.
- An IJ found Pruidze removable and denied withholding of removal; the Board affirmed without opinion and this court denied review.
- In 2009, after removal, Pruidze obtained a state court reversal of his conviction based on lack of counsel, redocketing the case.
- Pruidze moved the Board to reopen removal proceedings in May 2009 based on the state court’s vacatur; the Board denied, relying on the departure bar to deny jurisdiction for aliens abroad.
- The Board’s departure-bar rationale cited Matter of Armendarez-Mendez; the question presented is whether the Board lacks jurisdiction to hear motions to reopen filed by aliens outside the United States.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board lacks jurisdiction to hear a motion to reopen filed by an alien abroad | Pruidze argues the Board lacks jurisdiction to dismiss for departure since Congress gave broad authority to hear motions to reopen. | HOLDER (Board) contends the departure bar is a jurisdictional bar and prevents review when the alien is outside the U.S. | No; the Board may not deny jurisdiction; the court vacates and remands for consideration on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Armendarez-Mendez, 24 I. & N. Dec. 646 (B.I.A. 2008) (departure bar interpretation challenged as jurisdictional)
- Union Pacific R.R. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 130 S. Ct. 584 (U.S. 2010) (agency cannot contract its jurisdiction; mandatory rules versus jurisdictional limits)
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 130 S. Ct. 1237 (U.S. 2010) (distinguishes jurisdictional prerequisites from claim-processing rules)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2007) (distinguishes jurisdiction from other procedural rules)
- Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (clarifies jurisdictional boundaries and mandatory rules)
- Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (U.S. 2004) (procedural rules and jurisdictional requirements distinction)
- Madrigal v. Holder, 572 F.3d 239 (6th Cir. 2009) (departure bar not necessarily dispositive to involuntary removal context)
- Zhang v. Holder, 617 F.3d 650 (2d Cir. 2010) (Board authority to consider motions to reopen in various post-removal contexts)
- Matter of Bulnes-Nolasco, 25 I. & N. Dec. 57 (B.I.A. 2009) (Board action on motion to reopen where notice of warrant questioned)
- Marin-Rodriguez v. Holder, 612 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2010) (discussion of departure bar and jurisdictional scope)