Background
Angielih Godoy-Cartagena, a Honduran citizen, faced removal proceedings after entering the United States without inspection. Following an in absentia removal order, she filed a motion to reopen, which was denied. She appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, then filed an emergency motion to withdraw her appeal. Three days after her removal to Honduras, she filed a motion to cancel the withdrawal to maintain her appeal. The Board issued an order stating the appeal was withdrawn and the record was returned to the Immigration Court without addressing the motion to cancel.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed whether the Board gave reasoned consideration to the motion to cancel the withdrawal. The court noted that while the Board need not discuss every piece of evidence, it must consider all evidence and explain its decision sufficiently for review. The Board’s order stated there was nothing pending before the Board, failing to mention the motion to cancel. The court rejected the government’s argument that the presumption of regularity applied, stating that receipt of a motion does not presume the Board considered it. The court distinguished prior cases where the Board lacked jurisdiction to reconsider, noting that here the motion was filed while the withdrawal was still pending. The court concluded that the Board’s failure to address the motion rendered the decision incapable of review.
What it means going forward
The decision requires the Board of Immigration Appeals to explicitly address motions to cancel withdrawals of appeals in its orders. It clarifies that the presumption of regularity does not substitute for the requirement to provide reasoned consideration when a motion is part of the record.