Ramon Lara-Amaya v. Loretta Lynch
669 F. App'x 262
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Ramon Lara-Amaya, a Mexican national and former lawful permanent resident, sought reopening of removal proceedings after a state cocaine-possession charge was dismissed.
- He filed a sua sponte motion to reopen more than 90 days after the removal order, invoking 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1).
- The Immigration Judge declined to exercise sua sponte authority, citing the "departure bar" in § 1003.23(b)(1).
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ and added that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d) barred sua sponte reopening after departure.
- Lara-Amaya argued the departure bar application was arbitrary and that the agency failed to consider positive equities in his favor.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the legal question de novo because the IJ and BIA rejected the motion as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IJ/BIA could sua sponte reopen an untimely motion after the departure bar | Lara-Amaya: departure bar application arbitrary; agency failed to weigh positive factors | Government/BIA: departure bar (§ 1003.23(b)(1) and § 1003.2(d)) removes jurisdiction to sua sponte reopen untimely motions | Court: Departure bar governs; agency lacked jurisdiction to sua sponte reopen; petition denied |
| Whether applying the departure bar here was unreasonable under administrative-law principles | Lara-Amaya: blanket application is not reasoned decisionmaking | BIA/IJ: circuit precedent supports the bar's reasonableness | Court: Bound by circuit precedent; no intervening change in law; application reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354 (5th Cir.) (standards for reviewing denial of reopening)
- Ovalles v. Holder, 577 F.3d 288 (5th Cir.) (upholding departure bar application to untimely motions)
- Navarro-Miranda v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 672 (5th Cir.) (departure bar supersedes sua sponte reopening authority)
- Garcia-Carias v. Holder, 697 F.3d 257 (5th Cir.) (distinguishing timely and untimely motions under departure rules)
- United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143 (5th Cir.) (panel must follow circuit precedent absent intervening change in law)