Lady Carlina Ramirez-Rojas, a native of Colombia who entered the U.S. without inspection, faced removal proceedings after the Department of Homeland Security filed a Notice to Appear. She conceded removability and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge denied her relief and ordered her removal. Ramirez-Rojas attempted to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) multiple times, but her initial filings were rejected for defects. A corrected appeal filed in November 2024 was deemed untimely, and the BIA denied her motion to accept the late filing, finding she failed to explain the delay or establish grounds for equitable tolling. This dismissal made the removal order administratively final. Ramirez-Rojas subsequently filed a motion to reconsider, which the BIA denied, and a motion to reopen in March 2025, which was also denied as untimely. The BIA further declined to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen the case.
The court addressed two distinct issues. First, regarding the motion to reopen, the court applied the standard of review for abuse of discretion. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), a motion to reopen must generally be filed within 90 days of the final administrative order. The final order here was entered on December 5, 2024, making the deadline March 5, 2025. The petitioner filed her motion on March 21, 2025, over two weeks late, and failed to argue that an exception to the deadline applied. Consequently, the court found no abuse of discretion in the BIA's denial. Second, regarding the claim that the BIA should have reopened proceedings sua sponte, the court cited precedent establishing that it lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary decision not to exercise this power. The court noted there are no regulatory restrictions on this power that would provide a meaningful standard for judicial review, and the petitioner did not demonstrate an exception to this jurisdictional bar.
The petition for review is denied in part and dismissed in part. The underlying removal order remains in effect and administratively final. The decision reinforces the strict 90-day filing deadline for motions to reopen and clarifies that federal courts cannot intervene when the BIA chooses not to exercise its discretionary sua sponte authority to reopen cases.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download