Summary
The Second Circuit granted John Marcus Ramsay’s petition for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen or reconsider his removal order and granted his motion to stay removal. The court held that the BIA misread Ramsay’s arguments concerning the timing and significance of intervening decisions regarding the categorical overbreadth of his New York drug conviction, vacated the BIA’s order, and remanded for further consideration of equitable tolling.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the BIA abused its discretion by finding that Ramsay failed to demonstrate the due diligence required for equitable tolling based on a misreading of his motions.
- Whether the Government could affirm the BIA's decision on the alternative ground that Ramsay failed to preserve statutory overbreadth arguments before Harbin.
- Whether Ramsay was entitled to a stay of removal during review and remand proceedings.
Holdings
- The BIA abused its discretion because it materially misread Ramsay's motions as asserting that Harbin had established that his conviction statute was categorically overbroad. Ramsay relied on Harbin for indivisibility, while Minter was the decision that held the narcotic-drug term categorically overbroad.
- Reasonable diligence did not require Ramsay to raise arguments that the BIA had unequivocally rejected as meritless before the law changed to recognize a basis for relief.
Key quotations
“To the extent the BIA read Ramsay’s motions as asserting that Harbin eliminated the basis for Ramsay’s initial removal order, we find that it misread and misunderstood those motions.” (6)
“Reasonable diligence does not require Ramsay to raise arguments that the BIA has unequivocally rejected as having no merit.” (7)
“We thus conclude that the BIA abused its discretion when it relied on Ramsay’s motions for the proposition that Harbin “constituted a fundamental change of law,” Admin. Rec. at 4, since his motions made no such assertion.” (7)
Factual background
Ramsay, a Jamaican national and longtime lawful permanent resident, was charged as removable based on a 1996 New York conviction for attempted sale of a narcotic drug. He was deported to Jamaica in April 2007. After the Second Circuit held in Minter that the New York narcotic-drug definition was categorically overbroad compared with the federal Controlled Substances Act, Ramsay moved within thirty days to reconsider or reopen his removal order. The BIA denied the motions for lack of due diligence, reasoning that Ramsay should have acted after the earlier decision in Harbin.
Procedural history
Ramsay was removed to Jamaica in 2007 after being charged as removable based on a New York narcotics conviction. Following the Second Circuit's 2023 decision in United States v. Minter, Ramsay moved the BIA to reconsider or reopen his removal order. The BIA denied the motions, concluding that he had not exercised the due diligence required for equitable tolling. The Second Circuit granted the petition for review and motion to stay, vacated the BIA's order concerning the statutory motions, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The BIA's order concerning Ramsay's statutory motions to reconsider and reopen is vacated. The BIA must reconsider whether, in light of Minter, Ramsay is entitled to equitable tolling, consistent with the opinion.