Judith Etelvina Cancinos Guinac, a Guatemalan citizen, sought to challenge two separate orders from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). In the first matter, the BIA denied her motion to reopen and reissue a prior decision from 2003, which she based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. In the second matter, the BIA denied her motion to reopen and remand for administrative closure. The petitioner argued that the BIA engaged in improper fact-finding and violated her due process rights by failing to adequately consider the factors for administrative closure. She also attempted to challenge the BIA's decision not to sua sponte reopen proceedings. The consolidated petitions asked the Eighth Circuit to review these denials and grant relief from the removal proceedings.
The Eighth Circuit, in a per curiam opinion, addressed the petitions under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Regarding the motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, the court held that a movant must establish they exercised due diligence to equitably toll the filing deadline. The court found the BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that the petitioner lacked the necessary due diligence. Consequently, the court noted that courts and agencies are not required to make findings on issues that are unnecessary to the results they reach; since the motion was time-barred, the BIA did not need to consider the merits of the ineffective assistance claim. The court further concluded that because the BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to equitably toll the deadline, the petitioner could not show a due process violation. Regarding the second petition, the court affirmed the BIA's decision to deny administrative closure. The court explained that administrative closure is a docket management tool used to temporarily pause proceedings and is not available after the entry of a final removal order. The court found the motion was untimely and numerically barred under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7). The court also rejected the argument that the BIA failed to consider the factors in Matter of Avetisyan, noting the record showed the BIA did consider them. Finally, the court stated it lacks jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of a motion to reopen, even if cloaked in constitutional arguments.
The petitions for review are denied, meaning the BIA's orders stand. The petitioner's immigration proceedings remain subject to removal without the relief sought through reopening or administrative closure. The decision reinforces the strict requirement for due diligence when seeking to equitably toll deadlines for ineffective assistance claims in immigration cases and clarifies that administrative closure is generally unavailable after a final removal order.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download