Reyna v. Lynch
631 F. App'x 366
6th Cir.2015Background
- Petitioner Jose De La Cruz Reyna entered the U.S. in 2000 on a limited nonimmigrant border-crossing card but remained beyond the permitted time and distance; DHS served a Notice to Appear charging removability under INA § 237(a)(1)(B).
- Before an Immigration Judge (IJ) De La Cruz conceded removability, sought cancellation of removal and voluntary departure; the IJ denied both (including findings on continuous residence, exceptional hardship, and good moral character) and De La Cruz appealed to the BIA.
- A single-member BIA affirmed denial of cancellation based on failure to show exceptional and unusual hardship to his lawful-permanent-resident mother, but granted voluntary departure.
- After the voluntary-departure period, De La Cruz timely moved the BIA to reopen (seeking asylum, withholding, and CAT relief based on membership in the proposed group “Americanized Mexican deportees” and changed country conditions) and alternatively sought reopening for adjustment of status or administrative closure to await a visa priority date.
- The BIA denied reopening: it found De La Cruz failed to present new, previously unavailable material evidence; failed to make a prima facie case for asylum (particular social group), withholding, or CAT relief; and rejected reopening for adjustment of status due to expired voluntary-departure period and lack of an available visa; it denied administrative closure because the visa-availability argument could have been raised earlier and a final order existed.
- De La Cruz petitioned for review in this Court; the Court denied relief, holding the single-member BIA acted within its authority (and any error was harmless), and that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions to reopen or for administrative closure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a single-member BIA could grant voluntary departure after the IJ denied relief without convening a three-member panel | De La Cruz: BIA could not reverse or modify favorable/necessary IJ findings without a three-member panel; granting voluntary departure effectively reversed IJ’s moral-character finding | Government: 8 C.F.R. §1003.1(e)(5) allows a single member to affirm, modify, or reverse where consistent with precedent; grant was a permissible modification | The single-member BIA acted within its authority; even if error, it was harmless because it benefited De La Cruz |
| Whether the BIA abused discretion by denying motion to reopen for asylum/withholding based on proposed particular social group | De La Cruz: intervening BIA clarifications (M-E-V-G-, W-G-R-) changed the social-group standard and warranted remand/reopening; his group should qualify | BIA: De La Cruz failed to present new, material evidence and did not make a prima facie showing of a cognizable particular social group | Court: BIA did not abuse discretion; the social-group clarification did not materially change requirements and De La Cruz failed prima facie showing |
| Whether BIA erred in assessing changed country conditions and temporal scope of evidence for reopening | De La Cruz: BIA should have considered developments since 2000 and earlier period evidence | BIA: Motion-to-reopen rules require evidence be new and unavailable at the prior hearing; only post-hearing changes matter for reopening | Court: BIA properly limited consideration to evidence unavailable at the 2012 hearing and to post-2012 changes |
| Whether BIA erred in denying reopening/administrative closure to pursue adjustment of status | De La Cruz: sought administrative closure to await his sister-filed visa priority date; reopening needed to permit adjustment | BIA: Voluntary-departure period had expired; no immediately available immigrant visa shown; administrative closure improper because argument could have been raised earlier and a final order existed | Court: BIA properly denied reopening and administrative closure — independent ground (no available visa) dispositive; denial not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 512 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1994) (definition of “modify” supports minor change characterization)
- Villegas de la Paz v. Holder, 640 F.3d 650 (6th Cir.) (procedural-rule violations not reversible absent prejudice)
- United States v. Dedman, 527 F.3d 577 (6th Cir.) (harmless error doctrine where error benefited defendant)
- United States v. Ayotte, 741 F.2d 865 (6th Cir.) (same principle on harmless error)
- Patel v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 216 (6th Cir.) (jurisdiction exists to review legal questions about voluntary departure authority)