8 C.F.R. § 1003.2

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the prior Board decision.

Carrera v. Holder · filed 2009-09-28(b)(1)

The BIA therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying Rosas Carrera’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s October 12, 2004, order.

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the prior order.

Martinez v. Holder · filed 2009-10-05(b)(1)

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Angón Martinez’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order.

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the prior BIA decision.

Perez v. Holder · filed 2009-09-30(b)(1)

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s December 20, 2006 order.

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify specific errors of fact or law, so merely repeating arguments previously rejected does not satisfy the requirement.

Vera v. U.S. Atty. Gen. · filed 2009-11-20(b)(1)

“A motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior [BIA] decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). On the other hand, a motion to reconsider that merely restates arguments that the BIA previously rejected provides no reason for the BIA to change its prior decision. See Calle, 504 F.3d at 1329. “Therefore, merely reiterating arguments previously presented to the BIA does not constitute ‘specifying . . . errors of fact or law’ as required for a successful motion to reconsider.” Id. (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1)).

Section 1003.2(b) requires a motion to reconsider to identify the factual or legal errors in the prior Board decision and support them with pertinent authority.

Kipkemboi v. Holder · filed 2009-11-23(b)

A motion to reconsider must specify “the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the BIA's prior order.

Baghdasaryan v. Holder Jr. · filed 2009-11-30(b)(1)

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Baghdasaryan’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s November 13, 2007, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the prior decision.

Zuniga-Flores v. Holder · filed 2009-11-30(b)(1)

The BIA was within its discretion in denying Zuniga-Flores’ motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision.

A motion to reconsider must identify an error of law or fact in the prior BIA order.

Vargas-Plancarte v. Holder · filed 2009-12-08(b)(1)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Vargas-Plancarte’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of law or fact in the BIA’s December 8, 2006, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify errors of fact or law in the Board’s order.

De La Cueva-Puga v. Holder · filed 2009-12-28(b)(1)

We deny the petition for review as to petitioners’ motion to reconsider, because the Board did not abuse its discretion when the motion failed to identify any errors of fact or law in the Board’s order.

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the prior BIA decision.

Rebolledo-Adan v. Holder · filed 2009-12-30(b)(1)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rebolledo-Adan’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s October 6, 2005, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of law or fact in the prior BIA decision.

Perez-Bernal v. Holder · filed 2010-01-05(b)(1)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion because the motion failed to identify any error of law or fact in the BIA’s November 5, 2004 decision denying their earlier motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the prior decision.

Ahir v. Holder · filed 2009-12-30(b)(1)

Lastly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ahir’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion for reconsideration to identify an error of law or fact in the prior order; an argument unrelated to the order being reconsidered does not satisfy that requirement.

Vivian Lady Manzano Fernandez v. U.S. Atty. Gen. · filed 2010-01-19(b)(1)

Indeed, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to reconsider based on this argument because it does not relate to any alleged mistake of law or fact that the BIA made in denying her motion to reopen. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law, while § 1003.2(c)(1) requires a motion to reopen to be supported by an affidavit or other evidentiary material.

Reyes v. Holder · filed 2010-01-20(b)(1), (c)(1)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rivera Reyes’ motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s November 14, 2006, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). ... The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rivera Reyes’ motion to reopen because Rivera Reyes’ statements in his motion were not supported by an affidavit or other evidentiary material. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Patel v. INS, 741 F.2d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir. 1984) (“[I]n the context of a motion to reopen, the BIA is not required to consider allegations unsupported by affidavits or other evidentiary material.”).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the challenged BIA order.

Buenrostro v. Holder · filed 2010-01-20(b)(1)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Buenrostro’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s May 24, 2006, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

A motion to reconsider challenges the correctness of the original decision based solely on the previous record.

Rong v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. · filed 2010-02-24(b)

While a motion to reopen must set forth new facts, supported by evidentiary material, a motion to reconsider, by contrast, only contests the correctness of the original decision based solely on the previous record. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b).

Subsection (b) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the prior order.

De Torres v. Holder · filed 2010-02-26(b)

The BIA also did not abuse its discretion in denying Renteria De Torres’ motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s March 22, 2007 order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the prior decision.

Singh v. Holder · filed 2010-03-01(b)(1)

The BIA was within its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s June 23, 2006, decision denying reopening. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

Section 1003.2(b) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the prior decision.

Zakaryan v. Holder · filed 2010-03-25(b)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zakaryan’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s July 3, 2007, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the prior order.

Rosa v. Holder · filed 2010-03-26(b)(1)

The BIA was within its discretion in denying Rosa’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s April 26, 2007, order.

Section 1003.2(b)(1) permits the BIA to deny a motion to reconsider when the motion does not identify an error of fact or law in the prior decision.

Singh v. Holder · filed 2010-03-31(b)(1)

The BIA acted within its discretion when it denied Singh’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s August 21, 2007, decision denying reopening.

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to specify factual or legal errors in the BIA’s decision and support them with pertinent authority.

Mudiangomba v. Holder · filed 2010-04-20(b)(1)

A motion to reconsider must specify errors of fact or law in the BIA’s decision and must be supported by pertinent authority.

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to specify errors of fact or law and cite pertinent authority, while § 1003.2(c)(1) requires a motion to reopen to present material evidence that was unavailable and could not previously have been discovered or presented.

Lidijawati v. U.S. Attorney General · filed 2011-01-28(b)(1) and (c)(1)

A properly presented motion to reconsider “shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C). A motion to reconsider that merely restates the arguments the BIA previously rejected provides no reason for the BIA to change its prior decision. Calle v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 504 F.3d 1324, 1329 (11th Cir. 2007). "Therefore, merely reiterating arguments previously presented to the BIA does not constitute 'specifying . . . errors of fact or law' as required for a successful motion to reconsider." Id. ... The BIA will not grant a motion to reopen “unless it appears to the Board that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). Affidavits or other evidentiary material that state new facts, to be proven at a hearing if the motion is granted, must accompany the motion. Verano-Velasco, 456 F.3d at 1376. ... In the absence of any assertion from them that the evidence now presented could not have been previously discovered, they did not state a basis on which to reopen their case. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify errors of fact or law in the challenged BIA decision.

Wen Lu Xu v. Holder · filed 2011-01-31(b)(1)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Xu’s motion to reconsider because he failed to identify errors of fact or law in the agency’s denial of his motion to reopen as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the prior order.

Galvan-Lopez v. Holder · filed 2011-02-28(b)(1)

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Galvan-Lopez’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the prior order.

Mouhanna v. Eric Holder, Jr. · filed 2011-03-09(b)(1)

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Mouhanna’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the Board’s prior decision.

Toure v. Holder · filed 2011-03-18(b)(1)

To succeed on a motion to reconsider, the movant must specify an error of fact or law in the Board’s prior decision.

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the BIA's prior order.

Rodriguez-Arellano v. Holder · filed 2011-03-25(b)(1)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Arellano’s motion to reconsider where the motion did not identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the agency's prior decision.

Polanco-Chinchilla v. Holder · filed 2010-06-09(b)(1)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Polanco-Chinchilla’s motion to reconsider where the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the prior decision.

Arakelyan v. Holder · filed 2010-06-07(b)(1)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Arakelyan’s motion to reconsider because, apart from the changed country conditions issue, the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision denying her motion to reopen.

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the prior decision.

D'Cruze v. Holder · filed 2010-07-08(b)(1)

A motion to reconsider asserts an error in an earlier decision and requires the movant to specify the error of fact or law in the prior decision. ... 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (2010).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the prior decision.

Espinosa-Rodriguez v. Holder Jr. · filed 2010-07-16(b)(1)

The BIA was within its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision affirming the immigration judge’s order denying cancellation of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the prior Board of Immigration Appeals decision.

Sumeta v. Holder Jr. · filed 2010-07-16(b)(1)

The BIA was within its discretion in denying Sumeta’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s January 23, 2008, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).

(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the prior decision.

Uribe v. Holder Jr. · filed 2010-07-19(b)(1)

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Uribe’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the IJ’s September 11, 2007, decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the Board of Immigration Appeals’ prior order.

Arango-Gonzalez v. Holder · filed 2010-07-19(b)(1)

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Arango-Gonzalez’s motion because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s May 18, 2007, order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

A motion to reconsider must specify an error in the Board of Immigration Appeals’ underlying order.

Arevalo-Orozco v. Holder · filed 2010-08-31(b)(1)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Arevalo-Orozco’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to specify an error in the BIA’s underlying order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to show an error in fact or law, while § 1003.2(c)(1) requires an updated asylum application to establish prima facie eligibility for reopening.

Zhang v. Holder · filed 2010-09-07(b)(1), (c)(1)

Here, the BIA reasonably denied Zhang’s motion to reconsider because she failed to show any error in fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 2001). ... The BIA also reasonably noted that Zhang failed to attach an updated asylum application to her motion, which is a requirement of establishing prima facie eligibility. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); see also INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 104-05 (1988) (failure to establish prima facie eligibility for relief is a ground upon which a motion to reopen may be denied).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the prior decision.

Hernandez-Palacio v. Holder · filed 2010-09-28(b)(1)

The BIA was within its discretion in denying petitioners’ June 25, 2007, motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s May 23, 2007, decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).

A motion to reconsider must identify an error of fact or law in the BIA's prior decision.

Guerra v. Holder Jr. · filed 2010-10-13(b)(1)

The BIA was within its discretion in denying Guerra’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision denying Guerra’s motion to reopen.

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the prior decision.

Alghalayini v. Holder · filed 2011-04-04(b)(1)

The BIA was within its discretion in denying Alghalayini’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision denying her motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).

A motion to reconsider must specify the errors of law or fact in the BIA’s prior decision.

Lakew v. Atty Gen USA · filed 2011-05-02(b)(1)

A motion to reconsider must specify the errors of law or fact in the BIA’s prior decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to specify errors of fact or law, while § 1003.2(c)(1) requires evidence supporting a motion to reopen to have been previously unavailable.

Gavilano v. Eric Holder, Jr. · filed 2011-05-04(b)(1) (c)(1)

The motions failed to specify any error of fact or law with respect to the BIA’s dispositive determination that petitioners’ motions to reopen was untimely and that they failed to establish they were entitled to equitable tolling. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); see also Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling available “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”). ... The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motions to reopen where petitioners failed to demonstrate that their additional evidence was previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977, 984 (9th Cir. 2005).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the underlying order.

Lopez-Lucio v. Eric Holder, Jr. · filed 2011-05-04(b)(1)

The BIA was within its discretion in denying Lopez-Lucio’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the IJ’s underlying order pretermitting his applications for adjustment of status and cancellation of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).

Subsection (b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify specific factual or legal errors in the BIA’s prior decision and not merely repeat arguments the BIA already rejected.

Wimalaratne v. U.S. Attorney · filed 2011-05-20(b)(1)

A motion to reconsider must identify specific errors of fact or law in the BIA’s prior decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). The motion must do more than simply repeat arguments that the BIA already has rejected.

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify an error of fact or law in the prior order.

Zeng v. Holder · filed 2011-06-08(b)(1)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Zeng’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior order denying her motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify errors of law or fact in the prior order and support them with pertinent authority.

Izayaguyev v. US Attorney General · filed 2011-06-24(b)(1)

A motion to reconsider “shall specify the errors of law or fact in the previous order and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” INA § 240(c)(6)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1). A motion to reconsider that merely reiterates arguments previously presented to the BIA does not specify errors of facts or law as required for a successful motion to reconsider.

Section 1003.2(c)(1) bars reopening unless the offered evidence is material and was unavailable and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing, while leaving the Board discretion over when to reopen.

Mendoza-Avella v. U.S. Attorney Gen. · filed 2007-08-01(c)(1)

Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1), “[a] motion to reopen proceedings shall not be granted unless it appears to the Board that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.” In explaining 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1), we have stated that: [t]he provision is framed negatively, by directing the Board not to reopen unless certain showings are made. It does not affirmatively require the Board to reopen the proceedings under any particular condition. Thus, the regulations may be construed to provide the Board with discretion in determining under what circumstances proceedings should be reopened.

Section 1003.2(c)(1) requires a motion to reopen to state the new facts to be proved and make a prima facie showing that the alien is eligible for the requested relief.

Susanto v. Attorney General of the United States · filed 2007-08-06(c)(1)

As the BIA correctly noted, motions to reopen must state the new facts that will be proved and must make a prima facie showing that the alien is eligible for the relief sought. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1).

Section 1003.2(c)(1) requires a reopening motion to state new facts, provide supporting evidence showing prima facie eligibility, and offer material evidence that was previously unavailable, while § 1003.2(a) preserves the Board’s discretion to deny reopening.

SINGH · filed 2007-07-01(c)(1), (a)

A motion to reopen must, among other things, state the new facts to be considered at the reopened hearing and must be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary materials demonstrating prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1); ... A motion to reopen will not be granted unless the evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing. ... The Board has broad discretion to deny a motion to reopen. ... Accordingly, even if the respondent’s motion had presented new material evidence, we would deny the motion as a matter of discretion. See INS v. Doherty, supra; INS v. Rios-Pineda, supra; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Section 1003.2(a) places decisions to grant or deny motions to reopen or reconsider within the Board's discretion.

Adeoye v. Gonzales · filed 2006-01-04(a)

This claim, however, does not present constitutional or other legal issues but instead challenges the exercise by the Board of its discretionary authority. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2005) (“The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen or reconsider is within the discretion of the Board.”)

Subsection (a) gives the Board discretion whether to grant a motion for reconsideration and review a prior decision, so reconsideration is not available as a matter of right.

Siddique v. U.S. Attorney General · filed 2024-03-19(a)

Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration and review a prior decision is “up to the Board in its discretion”; reconsideration is not available as a matter of right. Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 424–25 (2023); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2022).

Subsection (a) gives the Board discretion to deny a motion to reopen even when the movant has made a prima facie case for relief.

Singh v. Attorney General of United States · filed 2006-01-04(a)

The decision to deny a motion to reopen is within the Board’s discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); Lu v. Ashcroft, 259 F.3d 127, 131 (3d Cir. 2001). Under the regulations, the Board “has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Section 1003.2(a) gives the BIA broad discretion to deny a motion to reopen when the applicant fails to present evidence satisfying the requirements for relief.

Rodriguez v. Gonzales · filed 2006-01-12(a)

The BIA acted within its broad discretion in denying Jimenez Rodriguez’s motion to reopen based on new evidence of a qualifying relative because Jimenez Rodriguez failed to present evidence the relative would suffer the requisite hardship. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); Ordonez, 345 F.3d at 785 (holding that prima facie eligibility is demonstrated by a showing that there is a reasonable likelihood that the statutory requirements for relief have been satisfied).

Section 1003.2(a) gives the Board discretion to grant or deny a motion to reconsider, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Quintero-Valencia v. Attorney General of the United States · filed 2006-02-22(a)

Regulation 1003.2(a) provides that the “decision to grant or deny a motion to . . . reconsider is within the discretion of the Board.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). Accordingly, we review to determine if the BIA abused its discretion.

Subsection (a) gives the Board of Immigration Appeals broad discretion to grant or deny motions to reopen, including discretion to deny one even when the movant has made a prima facie case for relief.

Ariza v. U.S. Atty. General · filed 2006-07-21(a)

The discretion afforded the BIA under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (a) with respect to granting and denying motions to reopen is expansive. See Anin v. Reno, 188 F.3d 1273, 1279 (11th Cir. 1999) (providing the regulation gives the BIA discretion to reopen proceedings “as it sees fit”). Specifically, the provision provides “[t]he Board has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (a).

Section 1003.2(a) gives the Board discretion to deny a motion to reopen even when the moving party has made out a prima facie case for relief.

Chang Ping Wang v. Attorney General of the United States · filed 2006-07-24(a)

The decision to deny a motion to reopen is within the Board’s discretion and, under the regulations, the Board “has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Section 1003.2(a) gives the Board discretion to grant or deny a motion to reopen or reconsider, including when the movant has made a prima facie case for relief.

Adrien v. U.S. Attorney General · filed 2006-09-06(a)

Pursuant to regulation, “[t]he decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen or reconsider is within the discretion of the Board, [and] . . . [t]he Board has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. §1003.2(a).

Section 1003.2(a) gives the BIA broad discretion to grant or deny motions to reopen, including denying one even when the movant establishes a prima facie case for relief.

Kantibhai-Patel v. U.S. Attorney General · filed 2007-06-15(a)

The discretion afforded to the BIA under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) with respect to granting and denying motions to reopen is expansive. See Anin v. Reno, 188 F.3d 1273, 1279 (11th Cir. 1999) (providing that the regulation gives the BIA discretion to reopen proceedings “as it sees fit”). Specifically, the provision provides that “[t]he Board has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Section 1003.2 places the discretion to grant or deny motions to reopen or reconsider in the Attorney General’s regulations rather than in the statute.

Miah v. Gonzales · filed 2008-03-25

The discretion to grant or deny motions to reopen or reconsider is conferred by the Attorney General’s regulations, not by statute. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2.

Section 1003.2(a) places the decision to grant or deny a motion to reconsider within the Board’s discretion.

Fazil v. Attorney General of the United States · filed 2008-05-09(a)

Regulation 1003.2(a) provides that the “decision to grant or deny a motion to ... reconsider is within the discretion of the Board.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Section 1003.2(a) allows the Board to reopen or reconsider on its own motion, at any time and for any reason, a case in which it previously rendered a decision.

Mendez v. Mukasey · filed 2008-08-08(a)

But, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), “[t]he Board may at any time reopen or reconsider on its own motion any case in which it has rendered a decision.” (Emphasis added.) This language demonstrates that the BIA does have jurisdiction to grant the request to reissue the same substantive decision with a later date of issuance, as it may sua sponte reopen any case, for any reason, in which it has previously rendered a decision.

Section 1003.2(a) places the decision to grant or deny motions to reopen or reconsider within the Board of Immigration Appeals’ discretion, subject to the section’s restrictions.

Johnson v. Mukasey · filed 2008-10-01(a)

The regulation that we cited in Kucana as satisfying these requirements, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), applies both to motions to reopen and to motions to reconsider. So far as the discretionary character of rulings on such motions is concerned, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) provides that the Board of Immigration Appeals’ “decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen or reconsider is within the discretion of the Board, subject to the restrictions of this section.”

Subsection (a) gives the BIA discretion to deny a motion to reopen even when the movant establishes a prima facie case for relief.

Umoeka v. Attorney General · filed 2008-10-01(a)

This standard of review grants broad deference to the decisions of the BIA, Ezeagwuna v. Ashcroft, 325 F.3d 396, 409 (3d Cir. 2003), because under the regulations, the BIA “has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); see Sevoian, 290 F.3d at 173 (“No statute or regulation creates any circumstance in which a motion to reopen must be granted. This implies that motions to reopen remain discretionary motions which the Board or Immigration Judge has ‘broad discretion’ to grant or deny.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).

Section 1003.2(a) places the decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen within the Board’s discretion.

Massis v. Mukasey · filed 2008-12-09(a)

Moreover, Massis has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen and reconsider. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), "[t]he decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen . . . is within the discretion of the Board." In denying Massis’s motion, the BIA noted that Massis "chose to solely respond to the DHS’s appeal" of the IJ’s grant of section 212 relief; failed to file a motion to remand proceedings based on ineffective assistance while his case was on appeal; and delayed "until almost 3 months after [the BIA’s] February 25, 2005 decision to raise his ineffective assistance of counsel claim." J.A. 363–64. Although Massis argues that he had no reason to enlarge the scope of the DHS’s appeal of the section 212 waiver, he has not shown that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen and reconsider as untimely.

Subsection (a) places motions to reopen and reconsider within the BIA’s discretion, so its decisions on those motions are unreviewable unless they present a constitutional claim or question of law.

Anaya-Aguilar v. Mukasey · filed 2008-12-09(a)

Motions to reopen and to reconsider are within the discretion of the BIA, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), and so are unreviewable unless they present constitutional or legal questions.

Section 1003.2(a) gives the Board discretion over motions to reopen, including discretion to deny reopening even when the movant has established a prima facie case for relief.

Mason v. Mukasey · filed 2009-01-07(a)

Aside from the specified exception to the filing deadline (asylum on basis of changed country conditions), motions to reopen may be granted only in the exercise of an IJ's or the BIA's discretion. 8 C.F.R. §1003.23(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. §1003.2(a). ... The IJ and the BIA have “discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the moving party has established a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. §1003.23(b)(3); see also 8 C.F.R. §1003.2(a) (emphasis added).

Section 1003.2(a) permits the BIA to deny a motion to reopen even when the movant has made a prima facie case for relief.

Chun v. Holder · filed 2009-06-29(a)

Whether Yang made a prima facie case for the relief he seeks is not relevant to whether the BIA abused its discretion when it denied his motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Section 1003.2(a) requires a motion to reopen or reconsider a case decided by the Board to be filed with the Board as a written motion.

Lin v. Holder · filed 2009-07-16(a)

The agency’s regulations provide that “[a] request to reopen or reconsider any case in which a decision has been made by the Board, which request is made by the Service, or by the party affected by the decision, must be in the form of a written motion to the Board.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Subsection 1003.2(a) places decisions to grant or deny motions to reopen within the BIA's discretion.

Yusif v. Eric H. Holder, Jr · filed 2010-01-13(a)

The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen . . . is within the discretion of the [BIA], 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), and our review is for an abuse of discretion.

Section 1003.2(a) gives the BIA discretion to grant or deny a motion to reopen, including after the movant makes a prima facie case for relief.

Lin v. Eric H. Holder, Jr. · filed 2010-02-10(a)

A decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen is generally within the discretion of the BIA. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). ... Thus, even when the moving party has made out a prima facie case for relief, the BIA retains discretion to deny a motion to reopen. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94, 105 (1988).

Section 1003.2(a) gives the Board jurisdiction over cases in which it has rendered a decision and requires later requests to reopen or reconsider those cases to be filed as written motions with the Board.

Lemus-Reyes v. Eric Holder, Jr. · filed 2011-02-28(a)

The regulations further provide that the Board has jurisdiction to reopen and reconsider cases “in which it has rendered a decision,” and that a “request to reopen or reconsider any case in which a decision has been made by the Board . . . must be in the form of a written motion to the Board.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). Accordingly, the Board has held that once an appeal has been filed with the Board, all subsequent motions must be filed with the Board.

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to specify the errors of fact or law in the prior BIA decision, while § 1003.2(a) preserves the BIA’s discretion to deny reopening even when the movant makes a prima facie case for relief.

Chen v. Attorney General of the United States · filed 2011-03-24(b)(1), (a)

Although Chen acknowledges that a motion to reconsider must specify the errors of fact or law at issue in the prior BIA decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1), he does not argue that he complied with that requirement. ... Such showing notwithstanding, the BIA “has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Section 1003.2(a) vests the BIA with jurisdiction to reopen, reconsider, or rescind any case in which it has rendered a decision.

Peng v. Holder · filed 2011-09-15(a)

Jurisdiction to reopen, reconsider, or rescind vests with the BIA in “any case in which it has rendered a decision.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). Because the BIA issued a decision in Peng’s proceedings in 2007, jurisdiction had vested with the BIA when he filed his second motion in 2009. See id.

Section 1003.2(a) leaves the decision whether to grant or deny a motion to reopen or reconsider to the BIA's discretion.

Myroshnychenko v. U.S. Attorney General · filed 2011-10-31(a)

“The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen or reconsider is within the discretion of the [BIA] . . . .” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Section 1003.2(a) leaves the Board discretion to deny a motion to reopen, even when the petitioner argues that evidence warrants reopening.

Cahue v. Holder · filed 2011-12-01(a)

No matter whether the Board did or might have characterized Cahue’s post-conviction petition as new and material evidence, the Board still retained discretion to deny his motion to reopen.

Section 1003.2(a) gives the Board discretion over motions to reopen, including discretion to deny one even when the movant has made a prima facie case for relief.

Irma Del Carmen Valle v. Eric Holder, Jr. · filed 2012-03-13(a)

The regulations provide that a motion to reopen is “within the discretion of the Board,” and that the “Board has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); see also Doherty, 502 U.S. at 323.

Section 1003.2(a) permits the agency to consider an untimely motion to reopen or reconsider through its sua sponte authority, and the exercise of that authority is entirely discretionary and generally unreviewable.

Ortiz v. Holder · filed 2013-04-16(a)

Because the untimely filing of Ortiz’s motion was not excused by any statutory exception, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii)-(iv), his motion “could only be considered upon exercise of the Agency’s sua sponte authority.” Mahmood v. Holder, 570 F.3d 466, 469 (2d Cir. 2009); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). Such a decision is “entirely discretionary” and beyond the scope of our review.

Section 1003.2 gives the Board discretion to grant or deny a motion to remand, even when the movant establishes a prima facie case for asylum.

Zhu v. Holder · filed 2013-04-30

But the Board need not grant a motion to remand even if the movant establishes a prima facie case for asylum; granting or denying the motion is entirely a matter of the Board’s discretion.

Section 1003.2(a) gives the BIA discretion to grant or deny a motion to reopen, including discretion to deny one even when the movant has made a prima facie case for relief.

Medina-Menendez v. U.S. Attorney General · filed 2014-09-08(a)

“The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen . . . is within the discretion of the [BIA],” which “has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Section 1003.2(a) gives the BIA discretion to grant or deny a motion to reopen or reconsider, including discretion to deny reopening even when the movant has made a prima facie case for relief.

Guerrero v. Holder · filed 2014-09-09(a)

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) ("The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen or reconsider is within the discretion of the Board . . . . [which] has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.").

Section 1003.2(a) gives the Board discretion to grant or deny a motion to reopen, so a denial is reviewed for abuse of that discretion.

James v. Lynch · filed 2015-10-02(a)

Because “[t]he decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen ... is within the discretion of the Board,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), we will only find such an- abuse “if the denial ... ‘was made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis such as invidious discrimination against a particular race or group.’ ”

Section 1003.2(a) places decisions on motions to reopen within the BIA's discretion, subject to abuse-of-discretion review.

Gjokaj v. Lynch · filed 2016-01-14(a)

“The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen ... is within the discretion of the [BIA],” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), and our review is for an abuse of discretion.

Section 1003.2(a) remains the sole source defining the Board’s authority to grant or deny a motion to reopen or reconsider, including sua sponte reopening.

Bonilla v. Lynch · filed 2016-07-12(a)

The regulation codified at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) thus remains the sole enunciation of the reach of that power.

Section 1003.2(a) gives the Board of Immigration Appeals expansive discretion to grant or deny motions to reopen.

Gonzalez-Rodriguez v. U.S. Attorney General · filed 2018-04-13(a)

The discretion afforded to the BIA under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) with respect to granting and denying motions to reopen is expansive.

Section 1003.2(i) generally directs that a motion to reopen or reconsider be decided by a single Board member, while allowing assignment to a three-member panel under the standards of § 1003.1(e)(6).

Gafurova v. Whitaker · filed 2018-12-18(i)

Under a plain reading of the regulation, an asylum-seeker’s motion to reopen or motion to reconsider will be decided by a single Board member “unless” the screening panel determines that the motion “should be assigned to a three-member panel under the standards of § 1003.1(e)(6).”

Section 1003.2(a) places decisions on motions to reopen or reconsider within the Board’s discretion, subject to the restrictions in the section.

Cruz v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen · filed 2019-07-09(a)

Finally, the Board possesses broad leeway: “The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen or reconsider is within the discretion of the Board . . . .”

Subsection (a) gives the Board discretion to grant or deny motions to reopen or reconsider, and that discretion remains broad even when the movant has made a prima facie case for relief.

Cruz v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Gen · filed 2019-09-06(a)

This wide discretion persists “even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.”

Section 1003.2 gives the BIA discretion to grant a timely motion to reopen.

Carlos Enrique Urrutia Robles v. Barr · filed 2019-10-08

The Attorney General’s regulations grant the BIA discretion to grant a timely motion to reopen. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2.

Section 1003.2(a) permits a party to request reopening or reconsideration before the BIA only when the case previously received a Board decision.

Abdi v. Barr · filed 2019-11-13(a)

Abdi properly requested sua sponte reopening before the BIA, but the BIA lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion and was therefore justified in not reopening. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (allowing parties to request reopening or reconsideration only in cases “in which a decision has [previously] been made by the Board”); cf. Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 580–81, 583–84 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that the BIA had to consider the respondent’s motion to reopen where the respondent’s claim had been previously rejected by the Board).

Section 1003.2(a) makes the BIA’s decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen discretionary, leaving no meaningful standard for APA review of that decision.

Ndaula v. Hoover · filed 2020-03-02(a)

Motions to reopen before the BIA are governed by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2, which provides in pertinent part: ... The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen or reconsider is within the discretion of the Board, subject to the restrictions of this section. ... In sum, to the extent that Petitioner is asserting a claim for relief under the APA, the Court is unable to review the BIA’s grant of DHS’s motion to reopen Petitioner’s removal proceedings because the grant or denial of such motions is committed to the BIA’s discretion and “there is no law to apply because the court has no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s unfettered exercise of discretion.”

Section 1003.2(a) gives the BIA exceedingly broad discretion over whether to sua sponte reopen or reconsider a deportation proceeding, leaving courts generally without jurisdiction to review a refusal to exercise that discretion.

Arrivillaga v. Attorney General United States · filed 2020-05-05(a)

The BIA has exceedingly broad discretion to decide whether to reopen a case. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). “Because the BIA retains unfettered discretion to decline to sua sponte reopen or reconsider a deportation proceeding, this court is without jurisdiction to review a decision declining to exercise such discretion to reopen or reconsider the case.”

Section 1003.2(a) gives the Board discretion to deny a motion to reopen even when the movant has made a prima facie case for relief.

Gonzales-Rosales v. Barr · filed 2020-09-16(a)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gonzales-Rosales’s motion to reopen as untimely, where he filed the motion nearly 19 years after his final order of deportation and failed to show he qualifies for any exception to the filing deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (“The Board has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.”), § 1003.2 (c) (setting forth filing deadline and exceptions).

Section 1003.2(a) gives the BIA broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to reopen, including denying it even when the movant has made out a prima facie case for relief.

Ayala v. Garland · filed 2021-05-03(a)

The BIA has broad discretion to grant or deny motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); Sosa-Valenzuela v. Holder, 692 F.3d 1103, 1110 (10th Cir. 2012). Indeed, the BIA “has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Section 1003.2(a) places decisions to grant or deny motions to reopen or reconsider within the Board of Immigration Appeals' discretion.

Arreguin v. Garland · filed 2022-04-04(a)

The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen or reconsider is within the discretion of the Board. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). ... For these reasons, the BIA did not abuse its substantial discretion in denying the motion to reopen.

Subsection (a) gives the BIA broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to reopen.

Vasconcelos v. Garland · filed 2022-04-21(a)

“The BIA has broad discretion, conferred by the Attorney General, ‘to grant or deny a motion to reopen.’” Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 250 (2010) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a)).

Section 1003.2(a) places decisions to grant or deny motions to reopen within the Board of Immigration Appeals’ discretion.

Cisse v. Garland · filed 2022-12-07(a)

“The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen . . . is within the discretion of the Board.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); see also I.N.S. v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992) (highlighting the Board’s “broad discretion” as to such motions).

Section 1003.2(a) gives the Board discretion to grant or deny a motion to reconsider.

Bekhbat v. Garland · filed 2023-07-27(a)

“Board reconsideration . . . [is] discretionary. By regulation . . . , ‘[t]he decision to grant or deny a motion to . . . reconsider is within the discretion of the Board.’” Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 143 S. Ct. 1103, 1117 (2023) (fourth alteration in original) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a)); see also id. (“[W]hether to grant the motion to reconsider, and thus proceed to . . . review, is up to the Board in its discretion.”)

Subsection (a) places motions to reopen or reconsider within the Board’s discretion, subject to the restrictions in the regulation.

D-E-B · filed 2025-02-04(a)

The respondent does not present any extraordinary circumstances for our consideration but does argue his daughter would suffer extreme hardship if he were removed. However, we will not assess the respondent’s daughter’s prospective hardship because we will deny his motion in the exercise of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (“The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen or reconsider is within the discretion of the Board, subject to the restrictions of this section.”).

Section 1003.2(a) commits motions to reopen to the BIA’s discretion, subject to restrictions imposed by regulation, statute, or the Constitution.

Lopez v. Bondi · filed 2025-02-24(a)

Yet, subject to certain restrictions, the decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen is committed to the BIA’s discretion. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). Unless a regulation, statute, or the Constitution dictates otherwise, the BIA may decide which circumstances warrant reopening.

Section 1003.2 permits the Board to consider a motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel after a final removal order.

Singh v. Napolitano · filed 2011-04-18

The Attorney General’s interpretation of the Board’s jurisdictional statute, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (2008), is reasonable, and we therefore defer to it. ... Under this authoritative interpretation, the Board had jurisdiction to hear Singh’s ineffective assistance claim, and Singh’s petition would fail for failure to exhaust this administrative remedy.

The Board has discretion to grant or deny a motion to reopen.

Cardenas-Martinez v. Garland · filed 2021-07-26(a)

Whether to reopen a proceeding after it has issued a decision is a matter of BIA discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (“The decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen . . . is within the discretion of the Board . . . .”); Lawrence v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 203 (4th Cir. 2016).

Section 1003.2(b)(2) limits an alien in removal proceedings to one motion to reconsider, while § 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen within 90 days of the final administrative decision.

Jiang v. Gonzales · filed 2006-01-04(b)(2), (c)(2)

The BIA’s discretion to grant motions to reopen or reconsider is subject to the restrictions contained in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2. *156Under these regulations, an alien in removal proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229 may file only one motion to reconsider a decision that the alien is removable from the United States. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). Because Jiang was in such removal proceedings, filing a motion to reconsider on December 30, 2003, necessarily precluded him from filing this second motion in February 2004. ... The regulations also restrict the BIA’s discretion to grant a motion to reopen by stating that, with certain exceptions not pertinent here, a motion to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened, or on or before September 30, 1996, whichever is later. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA summarily affirmed the decision below and rendered final the IJ’s order of removal on December 4, 2003; a motion to reopen would have been timely until March 3, 2004. Because the BIA did not receive Jiang’s motion to reopen until March 16, the motion was clearly outside of the time limitation. Thus, the BIA’s application of this procedural rule was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 1003.2(b)(2) limits an asylum applicant to one motion to reconsider and requires it to be filed within 30 days of the final administrative decision.

Wen Xing Gao v. United States Board of Immigration Appeals · filed 2006-08-07(b)(2)

An asylum applicant is limited to only one motion to reconsider, which must be filed within 30 days of a final administrative decision.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) permits only one motion to reopen and requires it to be filed within 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Wang v. Gonzales · filed 2007-04-09(c)(2)

The regulations provide that “a party may file only one motion to reopen,” and that the motion “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s second motion to reopen, filed more than three years after the final administrative decision was rendered.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) permits only one motion to reopen and requires it to be filed within 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Ortega v. Gonzales · filed 2007-06-12(c)(2)

The regulations provide that “a party may file only one motion to reopen,” and that the motion “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ second motion to reopen, filed more than two years after the final administrative decision was rendered.

Section 1003.2(b)(2) permits one motion to reconsider per decision, while § 1003.2(c)(2) bars a motion to reopen filed more than 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Lin v. Gonzales · filed 2007-07-12(b)(2), (c)(2)

A party is allowed one motion to reconsider “any given decision.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). Lin’s motion to reexamine was the sole motion filed for reconsideration of the August 7, 2003 decision denying his motion to reopen. ... The BIA correctly concluded that the motion to reopen was untimely because it was filed on April 25, 2003, more than 90 days after the final administrative decision dismissing Lin’s merits appeal on September 27, 2002. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally permits only one motion to reopen deportation or exclusion proceedings and requires filing within 90 days of the final administrative decision.

Nikollbibaj v. Gonzales · filed 2007-08-10(c)(2)

“[A] party may file only one motion to reopen deportation or exclusion proceedings (whether before the Board or the Immigration Judge) and that motion must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.”

Section 1003.2(c)(2) permits only one motion to reopen, requires filing within 90 days after the final administrative decision, and requires support with new facts or evidence.

Serna v. Gonzales · filed 2007-09-13(c)(2)

The regulations provide that “a party may file only one motion to reopen,” and that the motion “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to reopen, filed more than four months after the final administrative decision was rendered. See Itumbarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). Nor did the BIA abuse its discretion in determining that petitioner failed to support the motion with new facts or evidence. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) permits only one motion to reopen and generally requires filing within 90 days of the final administrative decision; the changed-circumstances provision did not exempt this petitioner from those time limits.

Lopez v. Mukasey · filed 2008-03-18(c)(2), (e)(3)(ii)

The regulations provide that “a party may file only one motion to reopen,” and that the motion “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to reopen, filed more than one year after the final administrative decision was rendered. See Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003). Nor did the BIA abuse its discretion in determining that petitioner failed to alleged changed circumstances in Mexico that would exempt her from the time limits for filing a motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(3)(ii).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) permits only one motion to reopen and requires it to be filed within 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Hernandez-Rodriguez v. Mukasey · filed 2008-04-23(c)(2)

The regulations provide that “a party may file only one motion to reopen,” and that the motion “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ second motion to reopen, filed more than two years after the final administrative decision was rendered.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally permits only one motion to reopen removal proceedings and requires it to be filed within 90 days after the final removal order.

Orozco-Orozco v. Mukasey · filed 2008-05-15(c)(2)

In addition, the regulations provide that a party may file only one motion to reopen removal proceedings and the motion to reopen must be filed not later than ninety days after the date on which the final order of removal was entered. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). A review of the administrative record demonstrates that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred. Petitioner’s final administrative order of removal was entered on July 30, 2004. Petitioner’s second motion to reopen was filed on August 27, 2007, more than 90 days after the date on which the final order of removal was entered. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Section 1003.2(a) gives the Board discretion to deny a motion to reopen even when the movant has established a prima facie case for relief.

Abdel-Whab v. Attorney General of the United States · filed 2006-01-06(a)

Under the regulations, the Board “has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Section 1003.2(a) gives the Board discretion to deny a motion to reopen even when the moving party has made a prima facie case for relief.

Jin v. Garland · filed 2024-11-18(a)

But a prima facie case for relief does not require the BIA to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (“The Board has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the moving party has made out a prima facie case for relief.”).

Section 1003.2(a) gives the Board discretion to deny a motion to reopen even when the moving party has made out a prima facie case for relief.

Fernandes v. Attorney General of the United States · filed 2006-05-02(a)

The decision to deny a motion to reopen is within the Board’s discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); Lu v. Ashcroft, 259 F.3d 127, 131 (3d Cir. 2001). Under the regulations, the Board “has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Section 1003.2(a) preserves the BIA’s discretion to deny a motion to reopen even when the alien establishes a prima facie case supporting reopening.

Ly v. Gonzales · filed 2006-06-12(a)

Even if an alien establishes a prima facie case that the bona-fide-marriage exemption enables the alien to be considered for an adjustment of status as the basis of a motion to reopen, the BIA still has the discretion to deny the motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Section 1003.2(a) gives the BIA discretion to deny a motion to reopen even when the movant has made a prima facie case for relief.

Liem v. Attorney General · filed 2008-05-22(a)

Under the regulations, the BIA “has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.”

Section 1003.2(a) allows the Board to deny reopening in its discretion even when the movant has a prima facie case for relief.

Dominguez-Gutierrez v. Garland · filed 2021-05-19(a)

The Board has discretion to deny reopening “even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Subsection (a) permits the BIA to consider a motion to reopen without a court remand.

Zhu v. Mukasey · filed 2008-06-11(a)

Indeed, the BIA may consider Zhu’s motion without this case being remanded, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), and should the BIA deny his second motion to reopen, Zhu may file a petition for review of that decision, see Durant v. INS, 393 F.3d 113, 115 (2d Cir.2004) (recognizing that orders denying motions to reopen are treated as final orders separate from final orders of removal and that such orders require separate petitions for review).

Section 1003.2(a) permits the BIA to deny a motion to reopen even when the alien has made a prima facie case for relief.

Cruz-Diaz v. Eric Holder, Jr. · filed 2010-07-28(a)

Finally, the BIA has the discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the alien has made out a prima facie case for relief, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), and, as shown above, the BIA did not abuse that discretion.

Section 1003.2(a) permits the Board to deny a motion to reopen in its discretion even when the movant has established a prima facie case for relief.

Tan v. Attorney General · filed 2008-06-13(a)

“The Board has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Section 1003.2(a) gives the BIA discretion to deny a motion to reopen even when the movant has made out a prima facie case for relief.

Kopali v. US Attorney General · filed 2009-02-18(a)

“In this particular area, the BIA’s discretion is quite broad.” Id. (citation omitted); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (“The [BIA] has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.”).

(a) gives the BIA discretion to deny a motion to reopen even when an alien has made a prima facie case for relief.

Karim v. Holder · filed 2009-04-16(a)

The BIA enjoys discretion to deny a motion to reopen even where an alien has made out a prima facie case for relief. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). This court lacks jurisdiction to review that discretionary decision.

Section 1003.2(a) gives the BIA discretion to deny a motion to reopen even when the movant has made a prima facie case for relief.

Vargas v. Holder · filed 2009-05-20(a)

“The [BIA] has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Section 1003.2(a) gives the BIA discretion to deny a motion to reopen even when the movant has made a prima facie case for relief.

Yang v. Attorney General of the United States · filed 2009-08-28(a)

Under the regulations, the BIA “has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Section 1003.2(a) gives the Board discretion to deny a motion to reopen even when the movant has established a prima facie case for the underlying relief.

Moosa v. Holder · filed 2011-05-05(a)

In fact, the regulations on which Moosa relies directly refute her position: “The Board has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Section 1003.2(a) gives the BIA discretion to deny a motion to reopen even when the movant has made a prima facie case for relief.

Bile v. Attorney General United States · filed 2017-07-27(a)

The BIA “may at any time reopen or reconsider on its own motion any case in which it has rendered a decision,” and “has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Subsection (a) permits the BIA to deny a motion to reopen even when the movant has made a prima facie showing for relief.

Hernandez v. Barr · filed 2019-04-22(a)

Furthermore, the BIA “has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a); accord Maatougui, 738 F.3d at 1240.

Section 1003.2(a) permits the BIA to deny a motion to reopen in its discretion even when the movant has established a prima facie case for relief.

Walters v. Attorney General United States · filed 2021-09-23(a)

Even if every one of her convictions were waivable for purposes of the good moral character requirement, the BIA would still retain discretion to consider her criminal history as part of its assessment of good moral character. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (providing “discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.”).

Section 1003.2(a) allows the Board to deny a motion to reopen in its discretion even when the movant has established a prima facie case for relief.

Walters v. Attorney General United States · filed 2021-10-04(a)

Even if every one of her convictions were waivable for purposes of the good moral character requirement, the BIA would still retain discretion to consider her criminal history as part of its assessment of good moral character. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (providing “discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.”).

Subsection (a) allows the BIA to deny a motion to reopen even when the movant has established a prima facie case for relief.

Carlos Enrique Urrutia Robles v. Garland · filed 2022-01-26(a)

The BIA “has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the party moving has made out a prima facie case for relief.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2020).

Section 1003.2(a) gives the BIA discretion to deny a motion to reopen even when the moving party has made a prima facie showing for relief.

Coote v. U.S. Attorney General · filed 2025-05-09(a)

As such, the BIA may exercise its discretionary authority to deny a motion to reopen on any of three independent grounds: “failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought, failure to introduce previously unavailable, material evidence, and a determination that even if these requirements were satisfied, the movant would not be entitled to the discretionary grant of relief which he sought.” Id.; see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (“The [BIA] has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the moving party has made out a prima facie showing for relief.”).

Section 1003.2(a) gives the Board discretion to deny a motion to reopen even when the movant has made a prima facie case for relief.

Ramirez v. Bondi · filed 2025-09-18(a)

Whether Guardado Ramirez is barred from moving to reopen on certain grounds does not divest BIA of its discretion to deny on others. See 8 CFR § 1003.2(a) (“The Board . . . has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the moving party has made out a prima facie case for relief”).

Section 1003.2(a) permits the BIA to deny a motion to reopen in its discretion even after the movant makes a prima facie showing of eligibility for the requested relief.

Sandoval v. Attorney General United States of America · filed 2025-12-16(a)

But the BIA may deny a motion to reopen even if the movant has made the prima facie showing. Id. at 160 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a)).

Subsection (a) gives the Board discretion to deny a motion to reopen even when the movant has made a prima facie case for relief, and sua sponte reopening is not a means to evade the time limits on motions.

Liu v. Blanche · filed 2026-04-13(a)

The BIA did not decline to reopen sua sponte based on Liu’s failure to establish his eligibility for relief; it explained in accordance with its regulations and precedent that its discretionary authority to reopen was not a means to avoid enforcement of the time limits on motions and that reopening was not required even if a movant established prima facie eligibility for relief. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (“The Board has discretion to deny a motion to reopen even if the moving party has made out a prima facie case for relief.”); In re J-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 976, 984 (B.I.A. 1997) (“The power to reopen on our own motion is not meant to be used as a general cure for filing defects or to otherwise circumvent the regulations, where enforcing them might result in hardship.”).

The Board has broad discretion to decide whether to reopen removal proceedings.

Hyzoti v. Eric Holder, Jr. · filed 2013-03-08(a)

The decision whether to reopen removal proceedings is a matter of broad Board discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Section 1003.2(b)(2) requires a motion to reconsider to be filed within 30 days of the Board decision and bars reconsideration of a decision denying a previous motion to reconsider.

Long Li v. U.S. Department of Justice · filed 2006-01-09(b)(2)

Whether Li sought to have the BIA reconsider its November 2002 order affirming the immigration judge’s decision denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief, or the BIA’s March 2003 decision denying Li’s first motion for reconsideration, Li’s motion was untimely, as it was filed in June 2003, more than thirty days after those BIA decisions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). Further, to the extent that Li sought reconsideration of the BIA’s March 2003 order, the BIA properly denied the motion, as “a party may not seek reconsideration of a decision denying a previous motion to reconsider.” Id.

Section 1003.2(b)(1) permits a motion to reconsider based on an alleged error of fact or law in the underlying BIA decision.

Jean v. Gonzales · filed 2006-01-27(b)(1)

A motion to reconsider asserts that the BIA made an error "of fact or law" in the underlying decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (2005). The BIA enjoys broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to reconsider, and thus we will reverse only for an abuse of discretion.

Section 1003.2(b)'s motion to reconsider is an administrative remedy, not an adequate and effective substitute for judicial habeas review.

Kolkevich v. Atty Gen USA · filed 2007-09-06(b)

First, it argues that Kolkevich could have filed a motion for reconsideration of his removal order with the BIA pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b) and that this would have sufficed as a form of judicial review. However, ... A motion to reconsider before the BIA is simply another point on the continuum of Executive action – it does not constitute judicial review of Executive action. Indeed, ... A motion to reconsider, like the BIA’s review of an IJ, is simply another phase of an administrative agency’s adjudicative process – it is not a collateral proceeding designed to review the legality of that process. Furthermore, the agency’s consideration of such a motion is clearly narrower in scope than a court’s “review” function. Therefore, a motion to reconsider pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 is not an “adequate and effective” substitute for habeas.

Section 1003.2(b)(1) treats a motion based on an alleged factual or legal error as a motion to reconsider, and § 1003.2(b)(2) permits only one such motion.

Cifuentes-Angel v. Eric Holder, Jr. · filed 2013-06-14(b)(1), (b)(2)

The BIA did not err in construing Cifuentes’s motion, which she titled a motion to reopen, as a motion to reconsider because it was based on a change in the law. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (a motion to reconsider alleges an error in fact or law); ... Because Cifuentes had filed a prior motion to reconsider, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion as number-barred. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (only one motion to reconsider may be filed).

Section 1003.2(b)(2) requires a motion to reconsider to be filed within 30 days, and § 1003.2(a) places the BIA’s refusal to reconsider sua sponte beyond judicial review.

Khanal v. Mukasey · filed 2008-04-04(b)(2), (c)(2), (a)

The BIA’s regulations require an alien to file a motion to reconsider within 30 days of the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reconsidered. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2). Here, there is no dispute that Khanal’s July 2006 motion was untimely where the BIA issued a final removal order in December 2002. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). However, Khanal argues that the BIA abused its discretion by declining to sua sponte reconsider his case in light of our decision in Ming Shi Xue v. BIA, 439 F.3d 111 (2d Cir.2006). We lack jurisdiction to review a decision of the BIA regarding whether to reopen or reconsider a case sua sponte under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir.2006).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) treats a filing that specifies errors of fact or law in the prior decision as a motion to reconsider.

Khodabakhsh v. Mukasey · filed 2008-07-08(b)(1)

The BIA properly construed Khodabakhsh’s August 3, 2004 motion as both a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(b)(1), (c)(1) (a motion to reconsider specifies errors of fact or law in the prior decision while a •motion to reopen states new facts to be proven at a hearing).

Section 1003.2(b) requires a motion to reconsider a BIA decision to identify errors of fact or law in the original decision and provide pertinent supporting authority.

Arina v. Mukasey · filed 2009-01-12(b)

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b) (requiring that a motion to reconsider specify errors of fact or law in the BIA's original decision and be supported by pertinent authority).

Section 1003.2(a) places motions to reconsider, including ineffective-assistance claims, within the BIA’s discretion, making them generally unreviewable except when they present constitutional claims or questions of law.

Malik v. Holder · filed 2009-03-13(a)

Motions to reconsider, including those that claim ineffective assistance of counsel, are within the discretion of the BIA, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), and so are generally unreviewable, save those that present constitutional or legal questions.

Section 1003.2(b)(2) requires a motion to reconsider a BIA decision to be filed within 30 days after the decision is mailed, while § 1003.2(a) requires a reason for reissuing a prior BIA decision.

Flores v. Holder · filed 2010-06-09(b)(2), (a)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Morales Flores’ motion was an untimely motion seeking reconsideration of the BIA’s April 21, 2004, decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (motion to reconsider a decision must be filed with the BIA within 30 days after the mailing of the decision), or by concluding that Morales Flores failed to provide the BIA with a reason for reissuing any of its previous decisions, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to identify specific errors of fact or law in the prior BIA decision, and merely repeating previously rejected arguments does not satisfy that requirement.

Cika v. U.S. Attorney General · filed 2012-01-19(b)(1)

“A motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior [BIA] decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C). A motion to reconsider that “merely republishes the reasons that had failed to convince the tribunal in the first place gives the tribunal no reason to change its mind.” Calle, 504 F.3d at 1329 (quotation omitted). “Therefore, merely reiterating arguments previously presented to the BIA does not constitute ‘specifying . . . errors of fact or law’ as required for a successful motion to reconsider.” Id. (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1)).

Section 1003.2 requires a motion to reconsider to identify the factual or legal errors in the prior Board decision and support them with pertinent authority.

Teoco v. Jefferson Sessions · filed 2018-02-21

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider, where petitioners did not show the BIA made an error of law or fact in its prior decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (“A motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.”).

Section 1003.2 requires a motion to rescind an in absentia removal order based on lack of notice to be filed with the Immigration Judge rather than the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Chettri v. Garland · filed 2023-08-22

As the BIA observed, motions to rescind in absentia removal orders based on lack of notice must be filed with the Immigration Judge (IJ), not the BIA. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2, 1003.23(b)(4)(iii).

Section 1003.2(a) requires a motion to reopen a BIA decision to be filed with the BIA rather than the immigration judge.

Flores-Arteaga v. Gonzales · filed 2007-04-30(a)

The IJ and BIA did not abuse their discretion in denying petitioner’s first motion to reopen because petitioner improperly filed the motion with the IJ rather than the BIA. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(a), 1003.23(b)(1).

Section 1003.2(a) allows the Board to hear a motion to reopen only in a case it has already decided; a motion to reopen an in absentia removal order must be filed with the immigration judge.

Singh v. Gonzales · filed 2006-01-12(a)

The Board reasonably concluded that under the INA and its implementing regulations, a § 1229(b)(5)(C) motion to reopen an in absentia removal order may be filed only with the IJ.

Section 1003.2(b)(1) requires a motion to reconsider to specify the factual or legal errors in the prior Board decision and support them with pertinent authority.

Liang v. Gonzales · filed 2006-01-12(b)(1)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Liang’s motion for reconsideration because the motion failed to identify any legal or factual errors in the underlying decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(1) (“A motion to reconsider shall state the reasons for the motion by specifying the errors of fact or law in the prior Board decision and shall be supported by pertinent authority.”).