Reyes Mata v. Lynch

Last updated
Reyes Mata v. Lynch
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 29, 2015
Decided June 15, 2015
Full case nameNoel Reyes Mata, Petitioner v. Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General
Docket no. 14-185
Citations576 U.S. 143 ( more )
135 S. Ct. 2150; 192 L. Ed. 2d 225
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorBoard of Immigration Appeals order no. A200 723 795; appeal denied, Reyes Mata v. Holder, 558 F. App'x 366 (5th Cir. 2014); cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 1039 (2015).
Holding
The court of appeals has jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals rejection of a motion to reopen. United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityKagan, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor
DissentThomas

Reyes Mata v. Lynch, 576 U.S. 143 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review the orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals to reject motions to reopen.

Contents

Background

Board of Immigration Appeals' decision

Noel Reyes Mata, an unlawful resident alien, was convicted of assault in a Texas state court and deported in 2010 to Mexico, the country of which he was a citizen. He filed a notice of appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals, an administrative court within the Executive Office for Immigration Review of the U.S. Department of Justice, which was dismissed on the basis that Mata's attorney failed to submit an appellate brief. Mata subsequently moved to reopen the case on the grounds that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel, a statutorily exceptional circumstance that entitled him to equitable tolling, although he had missed the 90-day window to move for reopening. [1] The BIA dismissed the motion, ruled it untimely, and declined to reopen the case sua sponte under its regulatory authority as per Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations. [2]

Judicial appeal

Mata appealed the BIA's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Reyes Mata v. Holder. He argued that the receipt of ineffective counsel deprived him of his due process rights, which should have preempted the untimeliness of his motion, entitling him to equitable tolling of time. The Fifth Circuit recharacterized Mata's argument for equitable tolling as an invitation for the BIA to exercise its regulatory authority sua sponte. Since judicial precedent bars courts of appeals from reviewing BIA decisions on the exercise of such authority, the Fifth Circuit dismissed Mata's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The opinion by Judges Barksdale, Haynes, and Higginson was delivered per curiam. [3]

Judgment of the Court

The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari and heard the arguments of the case on April 29, 2015. The question at hand was whether the Fifth Circuit erred in ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals decision to decline waiving the 90-day filing deadline. On June 15, 2015, the Court delivered its 8–1 opinion, written by Justice Kagan and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor.

It held that the Fifth Circuit court erred in declining to take jurisdiction. The courts of appeals, in fact, possess jurisdiction to review the BIA's decisions to reopen, including when the motion to reopen is untimely and when the petitioner is seeking equitable tolling. Not ruling on whether the Fifth Circuit has adequate jurisdiction to review sua sponte decisions by the BIA to reopen, the Court held that the correct disposition of the appellate court was to take jurisdiction and affirm the BIA's denial if the case was not entitled to reopening on the merits. The Court affirmed the "virtually unflagging obligation" of federal courts to assert jurisdiction where it has authority. [1]

Justice Thomas dissented and stated that before determining whether it possess jurisdiction, the Fifth Circuit should have first construed Mata's ambiguous motion as either invoking statutory relief or requesting the BIA to act on its sua sponte authority. [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

In law, sua sponte or suo motu describes an act of authority taken without formal prompting from another party. The term is usually applied to actions by a judge taken without a prior motion or request from the parties. The form nostra sponte is sometimes used by the court itself, when the action is taken by a multi-member court, such as an appellate court, rather than by a single judge. While usually applied to actions of a court, the term may reasonably be applied to actions by government agencies and individuals acting in official capacity.

Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, is the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer. Applicable statutes or canons of ethics may provide standards for recusal in a given proceeding or matter. Providing that the judge or presiding officer must be free from disabling conflicts of interest makes the fairness of the proceedings less likely to be questioned.

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and its relation to preclusion and concurrent jurisdiction.

Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006), is a US Supreme Court case involving the one-year statute of limitations for filing habeas corpus petitions that was established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that if the government unintentionally failed to object to the filing of a petition after the AEDPA limitations period has expired, it is not an abuse of discretion for a district court to dismiss sua sponte the petition on that basis.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court shifted the balance toward adjudications made by the INS and away from those made by the federal courts of appeals when aliens who had been ordered deported seek to present new evidence in order to avoid deportation. The Court ruled that courts must review the Board of Immigration Appeals's decision to deny motions to reopen immigration proceedings—the name of the procedural device used to present new evidence to immigration officials—for abuse of discretion.

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court determined that the federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to hear habeas appeals that are filed late, even if the district court said the petitioner had additional time to file.

Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S. 237 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a federal appeals court may not sua sponte increase a defendant's sentence unless the government first files a notice of appeal.

Tolling is a legal doctrine that allows for the pausing or delaying of the running of the period of time set forth by a statute of limitations, such that a lawsuit may potentially be filed even after the statute of limitations has run. Although grounds for tolling the statute of limitations vary by jurisdiction, common grounds include:

Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving copyright law. The Court held that failure to register a copyright under Section 411 (a) of the United States Copyright Act does not limit a Federal Court's jurisdiction over claims of infringement regarding unregistered works.

Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the enforcement of a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 was applied retroactively to Panagis Vartelas and was thus unconstitutional.

JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd., 536 U.S. 88 (2002), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a corporation organized under the laws of a British overseas territory is considered a "citizen or subject of a foreign state" for purposes of federal court jurisdiction.

<i>Boika v. Holder</i>

Boika v. Holder, 727 F.3d 735, is a precedent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressing an alien's motion to reopen after the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had denied her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and for relief under the convention against torture. Judge David F. Hamilton wrote the opinion for the three-judge panel which granted the petition for review and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings.

Luna Torres v. Lynch, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided the interpretation of section 1101(a)(43) of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which includes "aggravated felony" as a possible reason for deporting a non-citizen. The INA specifies certain offenses described in the federal criminal code as qualifying as an aggravated felony. The question before the court was if the plaintiff Jorge Luna Torres, who had been convicted under a state arson statute mostly identical to the federal statute but lacking an interstate or foreign commerce element in the federal law, fell under this definition of aggravated felony. The Court affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit original decision: the difference was merely "jurisdictional", and Torres still qualified for the accelerated deportation process described under the INA.

Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), a statute defining certain "aggravated felonies" for immigration purposes, is unconstitutionally vague. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) classifies some categories of crimes as "aggravated felonies", and immigrants convicted of those crimes, including those legally present in the United States, are almost certain to be deported. Those categories include "crimes of violence", which are defined by the "elements clause" and the "residual clause". The Court struck down the "residual clause", which classified every felony that, "by its nature, involves a substantial risk" of "physical force against the person or property" as an aggravated felony.

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.

Marshall v. Holmes, 141 U.S. 589, is an 1891 decision of the United States Supreme Court on equitable relief, res judicata and fraud on the court in diversity jurisdiction. Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote for a unanimous Court that held it unconscionable to allow a state court's decision to stand that had been based on documents later exposed as forgeries. It permitted a federal case seeking to set that verdict aside to go forward.

Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the jurisdiction of federal courts over immigration appeals.

Boechler v. Commissioner, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to Title 26 of the United States Code and equitable tolling. It is regarding the statutory interpretation of 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c) and whether the tax court would have jurisdiction over petitions to the tax court if the petition exceeded the 30 days time frame.

<i>Limtiaco v. Camacho</i> 2007 United States Supreme Court case

Limtiaco v. Camacho (2007), 549 U.S. 483, is a case of the United States Supreme Court which handled a complex taxation dispute between two Guamanian politicians—Douglas B. Moylan, Guam's first elected Attorney General, and Felix P. Camacho, then-Governor of Guam—involving the proper interpretation of the Guam Organic Act. Guam, an unincorporated territory of the United States, is governed by this Organic Act, a United States federal law passed in 1950; much case law in the territory is based on its interpretation.

References

  1. 1 2 Reyes Mata v. Lynch,No. 14-185 , 576 U.S. ___(2015).
  2. ↑ "8 CFR § 1003.2(a)". Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School.
  3. ↑ Reyes Mata v. Holder, 558F. App'x366 ( 5th Cir. 2014).
  4. ↑ "Reyes Mata v. Lynch". Oyez. Retrieved August 14, 2016.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.