These summaries are not intended as legal advice. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss the specifics of your case.
Viewing entries tagged
claims processing rule
The Third Circuit has determined that the 30-day deadline to file a petition for review of a final removal order is a claims processing rule, not a jurisdictional rule. The court also determined that a reinstatement order is not administratively final until a final agency decision is issued on the applicant’s withholding of removal and CAT applications.
The full text of Inestroza-Tosta v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Supreme Court has determined that the exhaustion requirement in 8 USC 1252(d)(1) is a claims processing rule, not a jurisdictional bar. Thus, a party can forfeit or waive an objection to exhaustion. In addition, the Court found that the statute does not require the filing of a motion to reconsider with the Board of Immigration Appeals to give the agency to correct legal errors before filing a petition for review of those errors in federal court. Motions to reopen and reconsider are not remedies of right, and the exhaustion requirement only requires an appellant to seek remedies of right.
The full text of Santos Zacaria v. Garland can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1436_n6io.pdf
The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that a respondent who first raises an objection related to an incomplete Notice to Appear in a motion to reopen has forfeited the objection because it was untimely.
The full text of Matter of Nchifor can be found here:
The Third Circuit has determined that “Guatemala women” do not qualify as a cognizable particular social group for asylum and withholding of removal purposes because the proposed group lacks the requisite particularity. The court also recognized that the Notice to Appear in the case was lacking the time and date of the first removal hearing, which constituted a claims processing rule violation. However, the court determined that equitable considerations supported the agency’s refusal to terminate proceedings despite the rule violation.
The full text of Chavez-Chilel v. Attorney General can be found here:
The Seventh Circuit has determined that a respondent who makes a timely objection to a defective Notice to Appear need not show prejudice from the defect in order to obtain dismissal of the proceedings.
The full text of Avila de la Rosa v. Garland can be found here:
The Fifth Circuit has determined that a Notice to Appear lacking the time and date of the first removal hearing is not jurisdictionally deficient. However, the court agreed with the Seventh Circuit that such a situation does present a claim-processing rule. Thus, the issue needed to be raised before the Board of Immigration Appeals.
The full text of Pierre-Paul v. Barr can be found here:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/18/18-60275-CV0.pdf
The Seventh Circuit has determined that a Notice to Appear that lacks the time and date of the first removal hearing does not create a jurisdictional defect in the removal proceedings. However, the defect in the document constitutes a claims processing rule violation, which must be timely raised or is deemed waived.
“A failure to comply with the statute dictating the content of a Notice to Appear is not one of those fundamental flaws that divests a tribunal of adjudicatory authority. Instead, just as with every other claim-processing rule, failure to comply with that rule may be grounds for dismissal of the case. But such a failure may also be waived or forfeited by the opposing party.” Failure to raise the issue before the Immigration Judge constitutes forfeiture of the argument.
The full text of Ortiz-Santiago v. Barr can be found here:
