The Eighth Circuit held that a denial of a motion to reopen requires a reasoned decision. The decision – with a complicated procedural history – leaves open the possibility that an individual’s mental health symptoms may materially affect the availability of evidence.
Resources on Motions to Reopen
You may search for resources either by title or by month and year.
Last updated on
Last updated on
Aimee Mayer-Salins and Maddie Birky of Training and Legal Support assisted Rebekah Niblock, a CLINIC affiliate at Charlotte Center for Legal Advocacy, in filing a Motion to Reopen and Rescind immigration proceedings for a client. The client, a teenager from Honduras, fled his home country with his father after receiving death threats from a local gang. He had also been separated from his parent under the Zero Tolerance policy.
Last updated on
CLINIC created the Remote Motions to Reopen Project, or RMTR Project, to address the critical need for competent representation for individuals with final orders of removal who could reopen their proceedings through filing a motion to reopen. A final order of removal has serious consequences. First, it puts a person at immediate risk of removal from the United States. Deportation can tear families apart and, for some, it can mean return to a dangerous country where the person faces torture, persecution or even death.
Last updated on
The Board of Immigration Appeals, or BIA, held that a statutorily noncompliant Notice to Appear (NTA) can nevertheless lead to the entry of an in absentia order of removal as long as the respondent is later properly served with a statutorily compliant notice. The BIA also re-affirmed its earlier holding that an NTA lacking information about the time and place of an immigration court hearing does not deprive the immigration judge of jurisdiction over a respondent’s removal proceedings.
Last updated on
In Niz-Chavez v. Garland, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the “stop-time rule” — used to calculate the 10-year continuous physical presence requirement for non-lawful permanent resident cancellation of removal and the 7-year continuous residence requirement for permanent resident cancellation of removal — is only triggered when the Department of Homeland Security serves a single “Notice to Appear” that contains all of the statutorily required information, including the time and place of the immigration court hearing. As a result of the Court’s April 29, 2021 decision, noncitizens with deficient NTAs who have since completed the required period of time in the United States for cancellation of removal may be eligible to apply for that form of relief, if they meet the other requirements.
Last updated on
CLINIC submitted comments on Dec. 23, 2020, opposing the majority of the proposed rules that would limit motions to reopen, reconsider and stay of removal, which would undermine fairness and
Last updated on
CLINIC has drafted a template comment to assist you to respond to EOIR’s proposed rule, "Motions to Reopen and Reconsider; Effect of Departure; Stay of Removal." The template comment provides you with language you can use to draft your own comments in opposition of this proposed rule.
Last updated on
On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020) holding that the Trump administration’s effort to end DACA had not complied with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. As a result, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling issuing an injunction against the DACA rescission and remanding the case for further proceedings.
Last updated on
This guide provides attorneys and fully accredited representatives with strategies and best practices for representing asylum seekers with in absentia removal orders.