Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Mei Yu Liu v. Attorney General of the United States
Citation: 153 F. App'x 126Docket: No. 04-4054
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; October 31, 2005; Federal Appellate Court
Mei Yu Liu petitioned for review of a decision from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which affirmed an immigration judge's denial of her motion to reopen her removal proceedings initiated on August 19, 2003. The court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and reviews the case for abuse of discretion. Liu was required to file her motion within 90 days, by November 17, 2003, but ultimately filed it one day late due to a technical issue involving the payment of the filing fee. On November 10, 2003, Liu's attorney mailed the motion and a money order for the fee; however, the money order was addressed incorrectly, leading the Department of Homeland Security to return it on November 14, 2003. Liu's attorney corrected the payment and filed the motion on November 18, 2003. Liu admitted that her filing was late but attributed this to a technical problem. The court expressed sympathy for Liu’s situation but noted that it could not grant relief unless it found an abuse of discretion by the immigration judge or BIA. The immigration judge stated that Liu's motion was filed late and acknowledged the lack of authority to waive the deadline. Liu argued that fairness warranted consideration of her circumstances, suggesting that the Department of Homeland Security should have contacted her attorney to correct the issue. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing the need for consistent processing standards given the volume of cases handled by the agency. Consequently, the court denied Liu's petition for review, concluding that the immigration judge and BIA did not abuse their discretion in denying the late motion to reopen. The opinion also noted that the enforcement functions of the Immigration and Nationality Act were transferred from the now-defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Department of Homeland Security in March 2003, which is relevant to the procedural context of the case.