Narrative Opinion Summary
In this immigration case, the petitioner, a citizen of China, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. The motion was filed nearly two years after the final order and was deemed untimely under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The petitioner contended that a corrected translation of a Chinese provincial law evidenced materially changed country conditions that should excuse the delay, but this argument was not exhausted at the administrative level, leading the court to dismiss it. The court also found no merit in the petitioner's claim of a due process violation, affirming that there is no due process right in the context of discretionary motions to reopen. Consequently, the court denied the petition for review, vacated the stay of removal, dismissed any related pending motions as moot, and denied the request for oral argument.
Legal Issues Addressed
Discretionary Nature of Motions to Reopensubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Jiang's claim of due process violation in the denial of her motion to reopen was dismissed because the court held there is no due process right in discretionary decisions regarding such motions.
Reasoning: Jiang's claim that her due process rights were violated was deemed without merit, as there is no due process right in seeking a discretionary grant of a motion to reopen.
Exhaustion of Administrative Remediessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Jiang failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by not arguing the corrected translation of the Fujian Province law as evidence of changed country conditions, leading the court to refuse consideration of this unexhausted argument.
Reasoning: The government argued that Jiang did not exhaust her argument regarding a corrected translation of the 2001 Fujian Province Population and Family Planning Law as evidence of materially changed country conditions that would excuse the filing time limit.
Timeliness of Motions to Reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Board of Immigration Appeals denied Jiang's motion to reopen her removal proceedings due to its untimely filing, as it was submitted nearly two years after the final order of removal, violating the regulatory time constraints.
Reasoning: Jiang's motion was untimely, filed nearly two years after the BIA's final order of removal, violating 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).