Claudia Elena Montejo-Gonzalez and her two minor children entered the United States and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. They were scheduled for an initial hearing before an immigration judge in Seattle. On the way to the hearing, the family encountered two major car accidents that caused severe traffic delays, resulting in their arrival two hours late. The immigration judge ordered them removed in absentia. The petitioners promptly moved to reopen, arguing that the accidents constituted exceptional circumstances beyond their control. The immigration judge denied the motion, ruling that ordinary traffic was not an exceptional circumstance and that the petitioners failed to make a prima facie showing of eligibility for asylum. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the decision, holding that traffic congestion and miscalculation of travel time did not meet the statutory standard. The petitioners then sought review in the Ninth Circuit.
The panel applied the abuse of discretion standard, requiring the IJ and BIA to look at the totality of the circumstances to determine if the failure to appear was due to exceptional circumstances beyond the noncitizen's control. The court identified three specific factors the agencies failed to consider. First, the agencies ignored that the petitioners did everything reasonably possible to attend, leaving home early and persisting in arriving despite the accidents, which were beyond their control. Second, the agencies overlooked the petitioners' lack of motive to evade the hearing, noting their history of compliance with government appointments and their prompt motion to reopen. Third, the agencies disregarded the unconscionable results of the in absentia order, particularly for the minor children who were eligible to seek derivative citizenship through their father, a U.S. citizen. The court held that the IJ and BIA erred by treating traffic delays as a standalone disqualifier and by requiring a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief, which is not a statutory requirement for reopening under the exceptional circumstances clause.
The decision remands the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals to properly evaluate the petitioners' motion to reopen based on the totality of circumstances. It establishes that immigration courts and the BIA must consider factors such as the petitioner's motive, efforts to appear, and the potential for unconscionable results, including the impact on minor children, when determining if exceptional circumstances exist. It clarifies that a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief is not a prerequisite for reopening an in absentia order based on exceptional circumstances.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download