Woozencroft v. Sessions
16-1343
| 2d Cir. | Dec 6, 2017Background
- Petitioner Damian Rudolph Woozencroft, a Jamaican national, sought review of the BIA’s March 18, 2016 denial of his motions to reconsider and to reopen removal proceedings.
- Procedural history: BIA denied Woozencroft’s third request for a briefing extension; he later moved to reconsider and to reopen, citing medical issues (awaiting surgery, poor vision) and a desire to submit a brief and additional evidence.
- Woozencroft’s motions did not specify legal or factual errors in the BIA’s prior denial of the extension, nor did they identify or supply any new evidence he intended to present upon reopening.
- The BIA denied both motions for failure to meet regulatory requirements for reconsideration (specifying errors) and reopening (presenting material, previously unavailable evidence or showing likelihood that new evidence would change the result).
- The Second Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decisions for abuse of discretion and applied prior-panel (law of the case) determinations regarding the extension denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA abused discretion in denying motion to reconsider denial of briefing extension | Woozencroft argued medical inability (awaiting surgery, poor vision) warranted reconsideration/extension | Government argued BIA properly denied reconsideration because motion did not specify errors of law or fact | Denied — BIA did not abuse discretion; motion failed to specify required errors; prior panel ruling on extension stands as law of the case |
| Whether BIA abused discretion in denying motion to reopen for want of new evidence | Woozencroft sought to submit a brief and additional evidence (unspecified) | Government argued no new evidence was presented or identified, so reopening standard unmet | Denied — no new evidence identified or supplied; movant failed to show likelihood new evidence would alter outcome |
| Whether the court could review BIA’s refusal to exercise sua sponte authority to reopen | Implied: BIA should have sua sponte reopened or reconsidered given circumstances | Government: decision to decline sua sponte reopening is discretionary and not reviewable | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — discretion to decline sua sponte reopening is unreviewable; no applicable exception was shown |
| Effect of prior Second Circuit determination on due process claim about extension denial | Woozencroft contended denial implicated due process due to medical inability | Government relied on prior Second Circuit order rejecting due process claim | Court adhered to law of the case and rejected due process challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Zhao Quan Chen v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2007) (standard of review for BIA motions to reconsider and reopen)
- Kaur v. BIA, 413 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion framework for BIA decisions)
- Ke Khen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2001) (criteria for BIA abuse-of-discretion review)
- Li Yong Cao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 421 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2005) (heavy burden for motions to reopen; new evidence must likely alter result)
- Johnson v. Holder, 564 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2009) (law of the case doctrine application)
- Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2006) (declining to review BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening as committed to agency discretion)
- Mahmood v. Holder, 570 F.3d 466 (2d Cir. 2009) (narrow exception where agency misunderstood legal background when declining sua sponte reopening)