Juras v. Garland


19-3001 (L) Juras v. Garland In the United States Court of Appeals For the Second Circuit August Term, 2021 Nos. 19-3001 (L), 20-248 (Con) BARTLOMIEJ JURAS, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. A056-062-135. ARGUED: SEPTEMBER 21, 2021 DECIDED: DECEMBER 17, 2021 Before: LIVINGSTON, Chief Judge, CALABRESI, and NARDINI, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Bartlomiej Juras seeks review of decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge to allow Juras to withdraw his application for admission to the United States, denying Juras’s motion to reopen, and affirming the Immigration Judge’s finding that Juras was inadmissible. We hold that we lack jurisdiction to review both the agency’s decision to allow Juras to withdraw his application and to deny Juras’s motion to reopen, and accordingly DISMISS the petitions insofar as they challenge those decisions. However, because our jurisdiction to review the Immigration Judge’s inadmissibility finding depends on whether that finding survives the withdrawal of Juras’s application for admission and therefore qualifies as a “final order of removal,” and because this appears to be a question of first impression in this Circuit that also has not been resolved by the agency, we GRANT the petition for review in 19-3001 in part and REMAND the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals to clarify what, if any, preclusive effect the Immigration Judge’s inadmissibility finding, affirmed by the Board, would be given in subsequent immigration proceedings. MICHAEL P. DIRAIMONDO (Marialaina L. Masi, Stacy A. Huber, on the brief), DiRaimondo & Masi, PC, Bohemia, NY, for Petitioner. JOHN BEADLE HOLT (Ethan P. Davis, Keith I. McManus, Rachel L. Browning, on the brief), Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. 2 TIMOTHY W. HOOVER, Hoover & Durland LLP, Buffalo, NY, as Amicus Curiae. WILLIAM J. NARDINI, Circuit Judge: Congress has sorted decisions in immigration proceedings into two categories: those that are subject to judicial review, and those that are not. The line between the two categories is often clear, but not always. This case illustrates the point. Bartlomiej Juras, a Polish citizen, was a lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) of the United States—in common parlance, he had a “green card.” But he moved back to Poland for a number of years to care for his ailing grandfather. When Juras returned, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) determined that he had stayed overseas too long: he had effectively abandoned his LPR status and was now inadmissible to the United States. The IJ let Juras withdraw his application for admission; this is an act of administrative discretion that generally benefits an alien, who thereby avoids being “removed,” which would 3 make it more difficult for him to seek certain immigration benefits in the future. But withdrawal might have a downside, because it could mean that Juras would be definitively required to re-start the immigration process from square one. Juras turned to the Board of Immigration Appeals …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals