Background
Johanna Briseyda Vasquez Bonilla, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of the July two thousand twenty-five decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying her motion to reopen. The petitioner challenged the denial based on a claim that she lacked notice of the hearing at which she was ordered removed in absentia and raised a claim regarding changed country conditions in El Salvador.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the Board of Immigration Appeals decision under a highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. The petitioner did not brief any argument challenging the determination that the motion to reopen was time-barred regarding the lack of notice claim, resulting in a waiver of that argument. Regarding the changed country conditions claim, the court noted it cannot consider evidence outside the administrative record and found the petitioner failed to make a meaningful comparison demonstrating a material change. Finally, the court held it lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of sua sponte regulatory reopening due to the entirely discretionary nature of such motions.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces that failure to brief specific arguments results in waiver and limits judicial review of discretionary agency actions like sua sponte reopening.