Narrative Opinion Summary
The case concerns a petition for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying the petitioners' motion to reconsider a previous denial of cancellation of removal. The petitioners were granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. Under 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(b)(2), the BIA is limited to considering only one motion to reconsider per decision, leading to the BIA's rejection of the petitioners' fourth motion as barred by regulation. The court affirmed this decision, noting no abuse of discretion. Additionally, the court determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to reconsider sua sponte, consistent with the precedent set in Ekimian v. I.N.S. The respondent's motion for summary disposition was granted in part due to the insignificance of the issues raised, resulting in a partial dismissal of the petition. All other pending motions were declared moot. The court's decision to deny and dismiss parts of the petition is not designated for publication or precedent, except as allowed by 9th Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Jurisdiction to Review BIA's Sua Sponte Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reconsider sua sponte, following established precedent.
Reasoning: Furthermore, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reconsider sua sponte, as established in Ekimian v. I.N.S.
Limitations on Motions to Reconsider under 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(b)(2)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The BIA's denial of the petitioners' fourth motion to reconsider was upheld because regulations permit only one such motion per decision.
Reasoning: According to 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(b)(2), a party is permitted to file only one motion to reconsider any specific decision, which means the BIA did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the petitioners’ fourth motion as it was barred by regulation.
Non-Publication and Precedential Valuesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The disposition of this case is not to be published or cited as precedent, except as allowed by specific circuit rules.
Reasoning: This disposition is not for publication or precedent except as specified by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Proceeding In Forma Pauperissubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court granted the petitioners' motion to proceed in forma pauperis, allowing them to proceed without the customary court fees.
Reasoning: Petitioners’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, and the Clerk is instructed to update the docket accordingly.
Summary Disposition and Insignificant Issuessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The respondent's motion for summary disposition was partially granted due to the insignificance of the issues presented in the petition.
Reasoning: Respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted in part due to the insignificance of the issues raised in the petition, leading to the partial grant of the motion to dismiss.