Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 1003.23
CopyCited 223 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 10981, 2009 WL 1423343
...and mother of two
children, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)
decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings to file an asylum
application based on changed country conditions, pursuant to 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(4)(i)....
...bortions were on the
3
rise. Jiang argued that her motion should not be time-barred even though it was
filed more than 180 days after the entry of the final administrative order of removal
under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i), which provides that:
[t]he time and numerical limitations [for filing a motion
to reopen] shall not apply if the basis of the motion is to
apply for asylum under section 208 of the Act or...
...tionality or the
country to which removal has been ordered, if such
evidence is material and was not available and could not
have been discovered or presented at the previous
proceeding.
8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i).
In support of her motion, Jiang offered previously unavailable evidence that
officials in the Fujian Province of China had increased enforcement of the one-
child policy by forcibly sterilizing parents with more than one child....
...is not entitled to a favorable exercise of discretion.
Al Najjar,
257 F.3d at 1302.
An alien may file only one motion to reopen removal proceedings, and it
must be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision. 8 C.F.R.
§
1003.23(b)(1)....
... seeks asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against
Torture; (2) the motion is predicated on changed country conditions; and (3) the
changed conditions are material and could not have been discovered at the time of
the removal proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i)....
...[which] constitutes changed
11
personal circumstances, not ‘changed circumstances arising in the country of
nationality.’” While changed personal circumstances do not meet the standard for
a petition to reopen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i), this was not the basis of
Jiang’s petition....
CopyCited 141 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...The additional
notations appear to read as follows: “On 2/8/16 a third motion to reopen was
filed -- renewing argument denied in 2nd [motion to reopen] (no appeal)[.] This
will be denied as untimely [and] because of previously filed motions[.] 8 CFR §
1003.23(b)[illegible][.] 2 No showing evidence [and] argument was not previously
available[.]” 3 Although a box is checked that explains the motion is denied “for
the reasons indicated in the attached decision,” no additional decision, se...
...The BIA agreed with
the Immigration Judge’s judgment and reasoning. It too specifically concluded
that “[Lin]’s additional arguments in his third motion to reopen were not new or
2
In context, this notation almost certainly references 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (“[A] party may
file only ....
...material. . . . A motion to reopen will not
be granted unless the Immigration Judge is satisfied 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. § 1003.23(b)(3).
6
Case: 17-10834 Date Filed: 01/31/2018 Page: 7 of 28
previously unavailable.” The BIA also determined that there was no basis for it to
have reopened sua...
...This motion must be made within 90 days of
the removal order’s entry, or 180 days after entry of an order of removal entered in
absentia where failure to appear was “because of exceptional circumstances.” 8
U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C), (c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), (b)(4)(ii)....
...DiGuglielmo,
544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005) (citing Irwin v. Dep’t
of Veterans Affairs,
498 U.S. 89, 96 (1990)). In addition, an Immigration Judge or
the BIA may reopen a removal decision sua sponte at any time. 8 C.F.R.
§§ 1003.2(a),
1003.23(b)(1).
The standard for granting a motion to reopen immigration proceedings is
high, and an Immigration Judge is afforded significant discretion in deciding
whether to do so....
...Reopening may be warranted only where the movant presents
21
Case: 17-10834 Date Filed: 01/31/2018 Page: 22 of 28
evidence that is new, material, and unavailable when the removal order was
entered. 8 C.F.R. §1003.23(b)(3) (“A motion to reopen will not be granted unless
the Immigration Judge is satisfied that evidence sought to be offered is material
and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the
former hearing.”). The reviewing IJ and the BIA have discretion to deny
reopening even where the movant has made a prima facie case that reopening
would otherwise be appropriate. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(3); 8 C.F.R....
CopyCited 84 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2013 WL 1499419, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7417
...departed the United States,
impermissibly conflicts with the statutory right to file one motion to reopen. Accordingly, the
BIA erred in concluding that the IJ lacked jurisdiction to reopen the removal proceedings under
the departure bar at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1).
2
Case: 11-14941 Date Filed: 04/12/2013 Page: 3 of 16
jurisdictional, and, therefore, it is not subject to equitable tolling.” This court, in
an unpublished panel decision, Avila-Santoyo v....
...torney
General also promulgated related regulations providing exceptions to the time
limitation for motions to reopen. For example, the BIA or the IJ is permitted to
reopen removal proceedings sua sponte at any time. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(a),
1003.23(b)(1)....
...9
Case: 11-14941 Date Filed: 04/12/2013 Page: 10 of 16
deadline, to apply or reapply for asylum based on changed country conditions or
upon a joint motion of all parties. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii)–(iii); 8 C.F.R.
§1003.23(b)(4)(i), (b)(4)(iv)....
...deadline is subject to equitable tolling. Specifically, the Attorney General
established a regulatory exception that permits the BIA or the IJ to reopen removal
proceedings sua sponte at any time and for any reason. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(a),
1003.23(b)(1)....
CopyCited 83 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 1799, 2008 WL 217364
...may be
rescinded only upon a motion to reopen filed within 180 days after
the date of the order of removal, if the alien demonstrates that the
failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances . . . . An
alien may file only one motion pursuant to this paragraph.
8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii)....
...The regulatory provision
limiting petitioners to one motion to reopen an in absentia removal order permits
one motion to reopen per in absentia removal order. The language states “an
order of removal entered in absentia” and allows one motion to reopen “pursuant
to this paragraph.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) (emphasis added)....
CopyCited 28 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 22095
...The IJ denied the motion to reopen, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction
because Contreras-Rodriguez had been removed from the United States.
Contreras-Rodriguez appealed to the BIA, asserting that the IJ could reopen the
proceedings at any time under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii), and that there were due
process concerns in his deportation proceeding because he had not received notice
of the hearing....
...2003) (holding that there is
no jurisdiction to reopen proceedings after the alien has been removed). However,
the order of removal may be rescinded, inter alia, “upon motion to re-open filed at
any time if the alien demonstrates that the alien did not receive notice.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229a(b)(5)(C); 8 C.F.R § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii)....
...In reviewing the motion to reopen,
the court’s review is limited to “(i) the validity of the notice provided to the alien,
(ii) the reasons for the alien’s not attending the proceeding, and (iii) whether or not
the alien is removable.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(D).
We have not addressed the interplay between § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) and the
precedent holding that the IJ and BIA lack jurisdiction to reopen the proceedings
once the alien has been removed. We believe Patel is inapposite, however, because
6
a motion to reopen in absentia proceedings can be made at any time if the alien can
show that he did not receive notice. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 28903
...able to “re-argue” the original excludability determination, it is clear that she
never moved to reopen or reconsider before the BIA, as authorized by 8 C.F.R. §
1003.2, or moved to reopen or reconsider before the Immigration Court, as
authorized by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
...petition our Court to review the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA’s”) order dismissing their appeal of an order by the immigration judge (“IJ”) denying their motion to reopen immigration proceedings, 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) and 8. C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and the BIA’s order denying their motion to reconsider the BIA’s ' prior decision, 8 U.S.C....
...A petitioner may file a motion to reopen proceedings before the immigration court if the motion states new facts that would be proven at a hearing and if those facts are supported by affidavits or other evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (B); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 (b)(3)....
...mitted). Subject to certain exceptions set forth in the statute and regulations, a “motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 (b)(1)....
...For purposes of the filing deadlines for motions to reopen and reconsider, however, the BIA looks to the date of the IJ’s order, not the expiration of voluntary departure. In re Goolcharan, 23 I. & N. Dec. 5, 8 (BIA 2001) (interpreting filing deadlines under previous 8 C.F.R. § 3.23 , now located at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23 )....
CopyPublished | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Argued: Apr 26, 2023
...concluding
that Clement did not establish equitable tolling of the ninety-day
filing deadline. The immigration judge’s April 30, 2021, order also
ruled that sua sponte reopening of removal proceedings under 8
C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) was not warranted given the continued
USCA11 Case: 21-13382 Document: 54-1 Date Filed: 07/28/2023 Page: 5 of 20
21-13382 Opinion of the Court 5
failure of Clement’s citizenship claim....
