Magana-Magana v. Garland – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination that an alien failed to show extraordinary circumstances to waive the one-year motion-to-reopen deadline, and the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition.
Standard: Mixed question of law and fact review under 8 U.S.C. section 1252(a)(2)(D)
Vote: Unanimous decision by a three-judge panel.
Practical effect: Immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals must now recognize that the extraordinary-circumstances inquiry under the Violence Against Women Act is a reviewable legal standard, even when the ultimate relief is discretionary.

The Ninth Circuit held it has jurisdiction to review whether an alien demonstrated extraordinary circumstances to waive the one-year motion-to-reopen deadline under the Violence Against Women Act. The panel concluded the Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in finding the petitioner failed to meet that standard.

Background

Lucila Magana-Magana sought to reopen removal proceedings filed in 2007 after being placed in proceedings in 2007. She filed a motion to reopen in 2022 based on new evidence of abuse under the Violence Against Women Act. The motion was filed outside the one-year statutory deadline, and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied the request, finding she did not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to excuse the delay.

The court’s reasoning

The panel relied on Supreme Court decisions in Wilkinson v. Garland and Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr to establish that applying a legal standard to undisputed facts is a mixed question of law and fact subject to judicial review. The court rejected the Government’s argument that the statute commits the decision to the Attorney General’s discretion, clarifying that the discretion applies to the waiver itself, not the threshold determination of extraordinary circumstances. The panel also declined to extend the logic of Ekimian v. INS, noting that the statutory text here provides a familiar legal standard unlike the regulation in Ekimian.

What it means going forward

Immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals must now recognize that the extraordinary-circumstances inquiry under the Violence Against Women Act is a reviewable legal standard, even when the ultimate relief is discretionary.