NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 20-3382 _____________ CLAUDIA IZAGUIRRE, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ________________ On Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency No. A075-968-003) Immigration Judge: Annie S. Garcy ______________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) January 24, 2022 _____________ Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, McKEE and MATEY, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: January 25, 2022) ____________ ____________ OPINION* _____________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. CHAGARES, Chief Judge. Claudia Izaguirre petitions for review of the denial of her motion to reopen before the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Because we conclude that no exception exists to our general lack of jurisdiction to review such denials, we must dismiss the petition. I. Claudia Izaguirre is a native and citizen of Guatemala. She came to the United States with her family on a B-2 tourist visa when she was ten years old, in 1991. Izaguirre was a derivative applicant on her father’s application for asylum; the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) waived Ms. Izaguirre’s appearance at her father’s merits hearing in August 1999. By the date of the hearing, Izaguirre, who was eighteen, was no longer living with her parents. She avers that she was not aware that the asylum application was denied, and only became aware that she lacked legal status when she was unable to renew her employment authorization several years later, around 2004 or 2005. Since that time, Izaguirre received Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”). Izaguirre’s daughter, born in the United States, filed an I-130 petition for Izaguirre, which was approved in 2019. Izaguirre filed a motion to reopen her case with the BIA in order to allow her to apply for adjustment of status. The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) did not oppose the motion, but the BIA denied the motion. Izaguirre filed a timely petition for review. 2 II.1 Motions to reopen must normally be filed within ninety days of an administratively final removal order, subject to certain exceptions not relevant here. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). Because Izaguirre filed her motion outside that window, she relied upon the BIA’s authority to reopen cases sua sponte at any time. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). “The decision to grant or deny” such a motion “is within the discretion of the [BIA]” and the BIA may deny a motion “even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” Id. We have held that because the BIA’s discretion in this area is essentially unfettered, we may only exercise jurisdiction to review denials of sua sponte motions when (1) the BIA relies on an incorrect legal premise in its analysis, or (2) the BIA has constrained itself through rule or settled course of adjudication. See Park v. Att’y Gen., 846 F.3d 645, 651—52 (3d Cir. 2017). Izaguirre argues that the BIA has consistently granted reopening in factually …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals