Okky Ficrada Jaya, a petitioner in removal proceedings, sought administrative closure of his case to allow time for a pending adjudication of a successive Form I-539 application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. After an Immigration Judge determined Jaya lacked competency, the Judge denied his motion for administrative closure and a continuance. Jaya appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed the appeal. The Board concluded that the request for closure was moot because USCIS had already denied the Form I-539 while the appeal was pending. Jaya then petitioned the Ninth Circuit for review of the BIA's decision.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the case applying de novo review to legal and constitutional questions, including due process claims, and abuse of discretion review to the denial of the continuance and administrative closure. First, regarding the competency issue, the court noted that while the Immigration Judge found Jaya lacked competency, the ultimate determination of safeguards is discretionary. The court held that the IJ's decision to allow retained counsel to continue representation was adequate because Jaya pointed to no evidence of counsel's failure to act as a safeguard and showed no prejudice from that representation. The court cited Vilchez v. Holder, stating that a due process violation requires both fundamental unfairness and a showing that the outcome may have been affected. Second, the court addressed the argument that the IJ improperly applied Matter of Avetisyan factors. The court agreed with the BIA that this challenge was moot. The record showed no evidence that Jaya informed the BIA of a pending motion to reopen at USCIS, and even if he had, that motion was also denied by the time of the decision. Citing Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, the court concluded that remand was not required because Jaya no longer had any remaining claims for relief or pending petitions that might affect his proceedings.
The petition is denied, leaving the immigration proceedings to continue under the existing order. The temporary administrative stay of removal is lifted, and the motion to stay removal is denied. Because the underlying relief was denied and no other pending petitions exist, the petitioner has no remaining claims for relief to pursue in this context.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download