Summary
This Eighth Circuit opinion reviews the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings based on a post-departure regulation. The court holds that the regulatory departure bar conflicts with the statutory right to file a motion to reopen under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) and is therefore invalid. Consequently, the court grants the petition for review regarding the statutory motion to reopen, denies it regarding the sua sponte motion, and remands the case for further proceedings consistent with the vacated state convictions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 8 C.F.R. §1003.2(d) departure bar conflicts with and is invalidated by 8 U.S.C. §1229a(c)(7), the statutory right to file a motion to reopen.
- Whether the BIA has jurisdiction to deny a motion to reopen sua sponte and whether the court can review that denial.
Holdings
- The statutory right to file a motion to reopen is not trumped by the BIA’s departure‑bar regulation.
- The court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision to reopen proceedings sua sponte.
Key quotations
“Our holding today is merely that Lacsina’s “statutory right to file a motion to reopen is not trumped by the B[IA]’s departure [bar] regulation.””
Factual background
Rustico Lacsina, a lawful permanent resident from the Philippines, was convicted in California of receiving stolen property (2013) and possession of a controlled substance (2015). He was placed in removal proceedings in 2024 and removed in November 2024. In 2025, California courts vacated his convictions, prompting Lacsina to seek reopening of his removal proceedings.
Procedural history
The immigration judge sustained charges of inadmissibility based on Lacsina's criminal convictions and ordered removal. The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision and later denied Lacsina's motion to reopen after his convictions were vacated, citing the departure bar regulation. Lacsina appealed both the BIA's affirmation of the IJ order and its denial of the motion to reopen.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.