Read case summaries of select BIA, Third, Fifth, and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals cases issued this last month.
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
Matter of DE JESUS-PLATON [crimmigration; post-conviction relief]
Matter of DE JESUS-PLATON, 29 I&N Dec. 7 (BIA 2025)
Holding:
The evidence of post-conviction relief under Section 1473.7 of the California Penal Code that the respondent submitted in support of his motion to remand does not demonstrate that his conviction was vacated for a procedural or substantive defect in the underlying criminal proceedings and not for reasons of rehabilitation or immigration hardship.
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
Manyary v. Bondi [defective NTAs, in absentia orders, motions to reopen, cancellation of removal, stop time rule]
Manyary v. Bondi, No. 22-3102 (8th Cir. Feb. 21, 2025)
Facts & Background
- In 2006, Moroccan citizen entered the United States on a visa and married a U.S. citizen and sought to adjust status just before his visa expired. USCIS denied the petition when he and his wife failed to appear at the adjustment interview.
- After his visa expired, USCIS sent a Notice to Appear (NTA) with the date and time of the hearing in immigration court to be determined. USCIS then sent a notice of hearing scheduling it for June 2007.
- Mr. El Manyary hired an immigration attorney who filed a motion to continue the hearing, and the hearing was moved to July 2007. But he did not appear at the hearing and was ordered removed in absentia.
- Seven years later, he filed a motion to reopen proceedings and rescind the in absentia removal order claiming that he did not appear because the hearing was scheduled in Minnesota and he had moved to Florida by the time it occurred. The immigration judge (IJ) and BIA denied his request as untimely and also reasoning that his case was not exceptional as he had not raised this issue in 2007 and clearly had notice of the hearing because he filed a motion to continue.
- Five years after that, he filed a second motion to reopen, claiming that the NTA did not prevent his accrual of continuous presence for purposes of applying for cancellation of removal because he did not receive proper notice. The BIA denied the motion as untimely and held that the stop time rule applied.
Notable Holdings & Rationale
- The Eighth Circuit denied the petition for review. It reasoned that "[s]ome motions are not untimely even when they are filed long after an alien’s ordinary deadline," such as a motion based on lack of notice under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii). But he failed to make the requisite showing here.
- His two main arguments were that the notice was in English instead of his native language (Arabic) and that the deadline was tolled by changes in the law. The Eighth Circuit concluded that the "statute does not require notice in any language other than English" and that the notice here was especially not problematic because he had English-speaking counsel. For the second point, the federal court recognized that the BIA "may toll deadlines when circumstances beyond a party’s control prevented timely filing," but concluded that did not apply here based in part on the Supreme Court's reasoning in Campos Chaves.
- Finally, the Eighth Circuit found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of sua sponte reopening because none of the arguments raised presented an issue that was reviewable.
Xia v. Scott [Hague adoptions, Form I-130, Administrative Procedure Act, standard of review, basis of decision]
Xia v. Scott, No. 23-3055 (8th Cir. Feb. 27, 2025)
Facts & Background
- Tim (a 14 year old, Chinese citizen) moved to Dallas in 2011 on a 6 month temporary visa to live with his U.S. citizen aunt and with the understanding that he may eventually move to the country. His parents remained in China and joined him several years later. Before his visa expired, the family learned that Tim could not become a permanent resident unless he left the country for 6 months. To avoid upending his life, Tim's aunt, Xia, adopted him in September 2012 (with consent of the parents). Tim completed high school in the United States and eventually moved in with his biological parents after his aunt moved away from Dallas in 2014. After graduating high school, he attended Emory University.
- In 2018, Xia filed an I-130 petition to get preferential immigration status for Tim. But she needed to show that the adoptions fell outside the Hague Adoption Convention because Tim was habitually resident in the United States at the time of adoption.
- USCIS found that Xia failed to show that Tim's adoption was outside the scope of the Hague Adoption Convention and that Tim had not entered the United States for the purpose of adoption or that he had developed compelling ties in the United States before the adoption.
- The BIA agreed that they had failed to establish habitual residence, and the district court on judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) found that Xia had not shown prejudicial error and that substantial evidence supported the BIA's holding.
Notable Holdings & Rationale
- The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded to the BIA for further proceedings. It explained that the APA requires the BIA to explain the basis of its decision and the rational connections between the facts found and the choice made. Here, the BIA cited facts supporting that Tim had established ties in the United States but ultimately held without further explanation that these ties "were not compelling enough to demonstrate his habitual residence in the United States."
- "The BIA decision fails to explain which 'specific facts and circumstances' it considered and how those facts negated Tim's documented connections to the United States. Without these factual findings, we are unable to conduct a meaningful review of the BIA's decision because we cannot discern the reasoning behind its conclusion or its application of the relevant factors to the legal standard."
Supreme Court
Riley v. Bondi [issue; issue]
Riley v. Bondi, Case No. 23-1270
Facts & Background
- Issues:
- (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited; and
- (2) whether a person can obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision.
Notable Holdings & Rationale
- Oral arguments are scheduled for March 24, 2025.