Ashley Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, faced removal proceedings after being charged with being present in the United States without inspection. Although she initially contested removability, she later conceded it and indicated an intent to apply for asylum. The Immigration Judge set a deadline of September 6, 2018, for her to file her application for relief. Rodriguez's counsel requested an extension due to difficulty reaching Rodriguez, but the IJ denied the motion and deemed her application abandoned. Rodriguez subsequently filed a motion to remand, arguing that she could not access necessary medical and criminal records because she had become homeless after leaving an abusive partner, and that she had good cause for missing the deadline due to her HIV status, depression, and lack of access to documents. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied her motion, dismissing her personal circumstances as sympathetic but insufficient to constitute good cause, without providing a detailed explanation.
The panel held that the BIA abused its discretion on two primary grounds. First, regarding the evidence of unavailability, the court noted that regulations require a motion to remand to proffer evidence that is material and was not available and could not have been discovered at the time of the former hearing. The court emphasized that evidence does not need to have been physically available in the world at large, but must have been reasonably available to the petitioner. Rodriguez's evidence regarding her HIV status and criminal history was highly relevant to her claim as an HIV-positive transgender woman and rape survivor. The BIA failed to address whether this evidence was reasonably available to Rodriguez given her homelessness and lack of access to storage facilities. Second, the court addressed the good-cause standard for missing the filing deadline. While traditional regulations limit reopening for discretionary relief to circumstances arising after the hearing, the BIA in Matter of R-C-R- recognized a good-cause exception. The Ninth Circuit accorded Skidmore deference to this interpretation, finding it consistent with principles of fairness. The court found the BIA's one-sentence dismissal of Rodriguez's circumstances as not amounting to good cause to be conclusory and insufficient. The BIA failed to articulate the proper framework for determining good cause, leaving the court unable to review the decision for arbitrariness.
The decision requires the Board of Immigration Appeals to reconsider Rodriguez's motion to remand. On remand, the BIA must evaluate whether the evidence regarding her HIV status and criminal history was material and reasonably unavailable to her at the time of the deadline. Additionally, the BIA must apply a reasoned good-cause analysis to determine if Rodriguez's homelessness and inability to access documents justified missing the filing deadline for her asylum application. The ruling clarifies that the BIA cannot issue conclusory denials of good cause and must articulate the factors used to determine whether a deadline was missed for a valid reason.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download