Viewing entries tagged
exceptional circumstances

Comment

Ninth Circuit Addresses Exceptional Circumstances for Missing Hearing

The Ninth Circuit has addressed the facts the agency must consider when determining if a non-citizen missed a hearing in Immigration Court due to exceptional circumstances. Namely, the agency must consider the totality of the circumstances, including whether the non-citizen had a motive to miss the hearing and whether the refusal to reopen would result in unconscionable circumstances. In this case, the minor children would be able to derive citizenship through their naturalized father if they were able to obtain permanent residency, and as such, the Court found that a refusal to reopen would cause unconscionable hardship. In addition, the non-citizens showed diligence following the issuance of their in absentia removal order by driving to court and speaking to the clerk, despite encountering two major car accidents, and promptly filing their motion to reopen. The court also emphasized that non-citizens are not required to make a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief to reopen an in absentia removal order.

The full text of Montejo-Gonzalez v. Garland can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/10/17/21-304.pdf

Comment

Comment

Ninth Circuit Finds No Exception to One-Year Filing Deadline for Asylum

The Ninth Circuit has rejected a petitioner’s argument that “youth, language barrier, ignorance of the legal requirement to file [the asylum] application within a year, and stress from fleeing [the applicant’s] home country, constitute a ‘form of incapacity or legal disability.’”

The full text of Martinez Alquijay v. Garland can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/07/27/20-70470.pdf

Comment

Comment

Ninth Circuit Affirms that Improperly Filed Appeal does not Toll Motion to Reopen Deadline

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed that an improperly filed appeal of an in absentia order did not toll the 180-day filing deadline for an exceptional circumstances motion to reopen. “While one could argue that Cui is a victim of ineffective assistance of counsel, she failed to raise any such claim andc ontinues to retain her arguably ineffective counsel before our court on appeal. Because we are limited to reviewing the arguments made in the briefs, we conclude both that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining Cui did not timely file a motion to reopen, and that the BIA did not commit legal error in declining to sua sponte reopen her removal proceedings.”

The full text of Cui v. Garland can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/09/23/18-72030.pdf

Comment

Comment

BIA Permits Rescission of In Absentia when Respondent was Late to Court Due to Severe Inclement Weather

The Board of Immigration Appeals has determined that an Immigration Judge has discretion to rescind an in absentia removal order when the respondent was late for her court hearing to severe inclement weather.

“In determining whether an alien has established exceptional circumstances, the “totality of the circumstances pertaining to the alien’s case should be considered. How late the alien arrives for her scheduled court appearance is a significant factor to consider, along with the reason(s) for her tardiness, in the totality of the circumstances. The totality of the circumstances approach may also take into account any other factors relevant to the alien’s individual case. For example, an alien’s young age may be relevant where there are multiple impediments to attending the removal hearing. Other factors, such as prior attendance at hearings, eligibility for relief from removal, and promptness in filing the motion to reopen may shed light on whether the alien intended to appear on time or otherwise had an incentive to do so.”

“In Matter of S-A-, we did not create a per se rule that traffic conditions cannot be an acceptable reason for a tardy appearance at a hearing. Instead, this Board held that an alien’s uncorroborated general statements will generally be insufficient to meet the burden of proof to establish reasonable cause for a late appearance. We reaffirm this holding. We also take this opportunity to clarify and extend the evidentiary framework in Matter of S-A- to proceedings falling under the exceptional circumstances standard, because this Board has not yet addressed this standard.“

“Pursuant to our de novo review, we conclude that the female respondent has established exceptional circumstances for her tardy appearance under the totality of the circumstances. Where an alien appears late to a removal hearing as a result of weather and traffic conditions, he or she may establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant reopening the removal proceedings where the extent of the tardiness was reasonable given the cause of the delay, the circumstances causing the tardiness were appropriately exceptional on a case-by-case basis, the weather and traffic conditions were not foreseeable, and the alien provided sufficient documentation corroborating the cause of the tardiness. Other factors, such as any prior affirmative application for relief, previous attendance at Immigration Court hearings, and other evidence indicating that the alien intended to appear at the hearing, may support an exceptional circumstances claim.”

“On this record, we conclude that she presented appropriately exceptional circumstances for her tardiness. As the female respondent does not drive, she hired a professional driver, upon whom she relied to arrive at the courtroom on time. Despite this planning, she was tardy because of a snow storm, which caused multiple accidents and severe traffic on several major thoroughfares in Ohio on the morning of her hearing. Moreover, weather reports indicated that the temperature was lower than usual for the time of year. These severe weather and traffic conditions are distinguishable from the ordinary or foreseeable traffic delays at issue in Matter of S-A-. Further, the female respondent’s corroborating information—including the affidavits and the weather and traffic reports—provided sufficient details documenting the reasons for her tardiness.”

The full text of Matter of S-L-H- & L-B-L can be found here:

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1408006/download

Comment

Comment

Ninth Circuit Finds that Memory Problems and Cultural Misunderstanding of Date Constitute Exceptional Circumstances

The Ninth Circuit has found that a woman who suffers chronic memory problems, and whose relatives misread the date of her hearing because of their belief that the first number in a numerical date represents the day of the month (and not the month itself), missed her hearing due to exceptional circumstances.

The full text of Hernandez-Galand v. Garland can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/05/12/17-70538.pdf

Comment

Comment

Sixth Circuit Finds that Exceptional Circumstances Prevented Minor from Attending Court

The Sixth Circuit has determined that exceptional circumstances prevented a 12-year-old minor whose mother had given birth 10 days before her hearing from attending her removal hearing. “E.A.’s case involves numerous impediments that prevented her from attending her immigration hearing, including her inability to change the location of the hearing, her inability to secure transportation from New York to Memphis, and her mother’s recent childbirth.” “In sum, we conclude that the BIA abused its discretion by denying E.A.’s motion to reopen. E.A.’s mother’s recent childbirth is a serious medical event, which coupled with E.A.’s minor age, her difficulty obtaining transportation, and her difficulty navigating the immigration system without assistance, constitute “exceptional circumstances” necessitating rescission of the in absentia removal order.” The court also noted that the E.A. was not required to show prima facie eligibility for relief in order to have her in absentia removal order rescinded.

The full text of EACA v. Rosen can be found here:

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/21a0011p-06.pdf

Comment

Comment

Third Circuit Declines to Reopen Removal Order when Non-Attorney Advised Petitioner not to Attend Hearing

The petitioner was advised by a non-attorney that he did not need to attend his removal hearing because he had an application for permanent residency pending based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen. Though the non-attorney did not hold himself out as an attorney, he did tell the petitioner he was an immigration expert. The Third Circuit determined that the petitioner’s decision to rely on this advice did not constitute “exceptional circumstances” sufficient to reopen his in absentia removal order.

The full text of Louis v. Attorney General can be found here:

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/182082p.pdf

Comment

Comment

Eighth Circuit Remands Appeal of Motion to Reopen

The Eighth Circuit has remanded a motion to reopen filed by an asylum seeker who was forced to leave the United States to seek emergency medical treatment, and who missed her removal hearing as a result.  The Court found that the Board of Immigration Appeals failed to determine if the emergency medical procedure qualified as an exceptional circumstance justifying her failure to appeal, and also declined to find that the applicant had necessarily abandoned her asylum application.

The full text of Payeras v. Sessions can be found here:

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/08/171584P.pdf

Comment

Comment

First Circuit Finds that BIA Abused its Discretion by Refusing to Reopen

The First Circuit admonished the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) for failing to exercise its discretion.  The petitioner sought reopening after two attorneys (both later disciplined for their unethical representation of clients) provided him ineffective assistance of counsel, resulting in the entry of an in absentia order of removal when he was approximately 30 minutes late to a hearing.  Though the Immigration Judge and the Board both agreed that the petitioner had received in effective assistance of counsel sufficient to toll the filing deadline for the motion to reopen, they declined to reopen because the petitioner had received notice of the proper time of his hearing.  The court doubted whether being 30 minutes late was really grounds for an in absentia, but noted that attorney's failure to inform the judge of the client's appearance (after the judge indicated a willingness to reopen the case if the petitioner appeared later that morning) was an exceptional circumstance.

The full text of Murillo-Robles v. Lynch can be found here:

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-2568P-01A.pdf

Comment

Comment

Ninth Circuit Determines that Car Failure is not Necessarily an Exceptional Circumstance

In the context of a motion to reopen, the Ninth Circuit has determined that car failure, on its own, is not necessarily an exceptional circumstance that warrants rescission of an in absentia order of removal.  The Court was very careful to narrow its holding to the facts of the instant case.  

"[M]echanical failure coupled with decisions to leave insufficient time to account for routine delays and to pay for car repairs instead of transportation to court, does not constitute exceptional circumstances."

The full text of Arredondo v. Lynch can be found here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/05/27/14-71907.pdf

Comment