Sonia Calla Mejia v. Jefferson Sessions III
866 F.3d 573
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Sonia Calla Mejia, a Peruvian woman who suffered domestic violence, first illegally entered the U.S. in April 2015, expressed a credible fear, and was placed in removal proceedings; at a June 2015 Master Calendar hearing she declined to apply for relief, waived appeal, and was removed to Peru.
- After returning to Peru she was attacked again and re-entered the U.S.; DHS reinstated her June 2015 removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) and, after a reasonable-fear finding, placed her in withholding-only proceedings under agency regulations (8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(e)).
- In Maryland proceedings (Feb 2016) an IJ found her ineligible to apply for asylum because of the reinstated order, granted withholding of removal, and both parties waived appeal of that withholding grant.
- Calla Mejia petitioned for review, arguing (1) § 1158(a)(1) allows any alien to apply for asylum regardless of status and thus she may apply despite reinstatement, and (2) alternatively, her June 2015 removal order was invalid due to procedural/due-process defects.
- The government argued the court lacked jurisdiction over the asylum claim for failure to exhaust and that § 1231(a)(5) categorically bars asylum applications by reinstated-returnees; it also argued Calla Mejia’s challenges to the 2015 order were untimely.
- The Fourth Circuit held it had jurisdiction to decide the statutory/asylum-eligibility question (because she had no administrative avenue to obtain asylum while in withholding-only proceedings) but lacked jurisdiction to review her untimely challenges to the original June 2015 removal order; on the merits the court held § 1231(a)(5) precludes asylum applications by aliens subject to reinstated removal orders and denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an alien subject to a reinstated removal order may apply for asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158 | Calla Mejia: § 1158(a)(1) allows "any alien irrespective of status" to apply for asylum; no cross-reference needed — she may apply despite reinstatement | Government: § 1231(a)(5) bars aliens with reinstated orders from applying for "any relief under Chapter 12," which includes asylum; agency regulation 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(e) is a permissible interpretation | Held: § 1231(a)(5) is a specific prohibition that controls § 1158’s general grant; aliens with reinstated orders cannot apply for asylum (petition denied as to merits) |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to decide Calla Mejia’s statutory asylum-eligibility claim (exhaustion) | Calla Mejia: she had no administrative avenue "as of right" to obtain asylum in withholding-only proceedings, so exhaustion requirement does not bar judicial review | Government: she failed to exhaust by withdrawing asylum application and not appealing to the BIA | Held: Court has jurisdiction — exhaustion requirement excused because DHS regulations limited reinstated- order aliens to withholding-only proceedings, so no administrative forum "as of right" existed (petition not dismissed on exhaustion) |
| Whether the reinstated removal order’s underlying June 2015 hearing may be collaterally reviewed here (timeliness/jurisdiction) | Calla Mejia: REAL ID Act § 1252(a)(2)(D) preserves review of legal or constitutional claims, and the 30-day filing rule should run from the date reinstatement became final | Government: petition challenging the June 2015 order was untimely; § 1252(b)(1) requires filing within 30 days of the original removal order becoming final | Held: Court lacks jurisdiction to hear challenges to the June 2015 order — petition was not timely as to the underlying order and § 1252(b)(1)’s 30-day clock runs from the original final order date (dismissed in part) |
| Whether denying asylum to reinstated-returnees conflicts with international treaty obligations (Charming Betsy/Protocol) | Calla Mejia: denial penalizes illegal entry and conflicts with Article 31(1) of the 1967 Protocol (prohibiting penalties for illegal entry) | Government: Protocol does not require repeated opportunities to apply for discretionary asylum; withholding and CAT protection remain available so no treaty conflict | Held: No conflict — withholding and CAT relief remain; barring asylum applications here does not constitute an impermissible "penalty" under the Protocol |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (U.S. 1987) (distinguishes asylum as discretionary versus refugee definition)
- INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (U.S. 1999) (asylum grant is committed to Attorney General’s discretion)
- Anim v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2008) (withholding of removal requires a higher proof standard than asylum)
- Etienne v. Lynch, 813 F.3d 135 (4th Cir. 2015) (exhaustion excused when agency provides no avenue to raise legal claim)
- Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30 (U.S. 2006) (discusses effect of § 1231(a)(5) on reinstatement and limiting relief)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (two-step framework for reviewing agency statutory interpretations)
- Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2015) (holds reinstatement bar precludes asylum)
- Cazun v. Attorney General, 856 F.3d 249 (3d Cir. 2017) (analyzes interplay of § 1158 and § 1231(a)(5))
- Garcia Garcia v. Sessions, 856 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2017) (addresses asylum eligibility after reinstatement)
- Perez-Guzman v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2016) (affirms agency rule barring asylum for reinstated-returnees)