Narrative Opinion Summary
Suriana Lin, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitioned for review of the BIA's July 24, 2008 order denying her motion to reopen her removal proceedings. The BIA found her motion untimely and rejected her argument that a prior decision, Mufied v. Mukasey, constituted a significant change in asylum law warranting sua sponte reopening. The BIA's discretion to deny such reopening is not subject to judicial review, as established in Azmond Ali v. Gonzales. Consequently, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision. The petition for review is dismissed, any previously granted stay of removal is vacated, pending motions for a stay are dismissed as moot, and the request for oral argument is denied under relevant federal rules.
Legal Issues Addressed
Effect of Mootness on Pending Motionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court dismissed pending motions for a stay as moot following the dismissal of the petition for review.
Reasoning: The petition for review is dismissed, any previously granted stay of removal is vacated, pending motions for a stay are dismissed as moot, and the request for oral argument is denied under relevant federal rules.
Judicial Review of BIA's Discretionary Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision to deny reopening of Lin's case sua sponte because such discretion is beyond judicial review.
Reasoning: The BIA's discretion to deny such reopening is not subject to judicial review, as established in Azmond Ali v. Gonzales.
Timeliness of Motions to Reopen Removal Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The BIA dismissed Suriana Lin's motion to reopen her removal proceedings on the basis that it was filed beyond the permissible time limits.
Reasoning: The BIA found her motion untimely and rejected her argument that a prior decision, Mufied v. Mukasey, constituted a significant change in asylum law warranting sua sponte reopening.