Mata v. LYNCH (576 U.S. 143)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 15, 2015 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 576 U.S. 143 · 135 S. Ct. 2150
- Decided
- June 15, 2015
- Term
- October Term 2014
- Vote
- 8–1
- Majority author
- Justice Kagan
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Opinion Justice KAGANdelivered the opinion of the Court. An alien ordered to leave the country has a statutory right to file a motion to reopen his removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A). If immigration officials deny that motion, a federal court of appeals has jurisdiction to consider a petition to review their decision. See Kucana v. Holder,558 U.S. 233, 242, 253, 130 S.Ct. 827, 175 L.Ed.2d 694 (2010). Notwithstanding that rule, the court below declined to take jurisdiction over such an appeal because the motion to reopen had been denied as untimely. We hold that was error. I The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 66 Stat. 163, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.,and its implementing regulations set out the process for removing aliens from the country. An immigration judge (IJ) conducts the initial proceedings; if he orders removal, the alien has the opportunity to appeal that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board). §§ 1229a(a)(1), (c)(5). "[E]very alien ordered removed" also "has a right to file one motion" with the IJ or Board to "reopen his or her removal proceedings." Dada v. Mukasey,554 U.S. 1, 4-5, 128 S.Ct. 2307, 171 L.Ed.2d 178 (2008); see § 1229a(c)(7)(A). Subject to exceptions not relevant here, that motion to reopen "shall be filed within 90 days" of the final removal order. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). Finally, the BIA's regulations…
Excerpt of a 14,760-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.