Filed: Jan. 23, 2013
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: motion to reopen was untimely, we deny her petition for review. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i) (2011), but this requires changes in the, country of removal as opposed to a mere change in personal, circumstances such as Paca's marriage, see Larngar v. Holder, 562, F.3d 71, 76-77 (1st Cir.So ordered.
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 12-1437
MARGARITA PACA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE
BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
Before
Lynch, Chief Judge,
Selya and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
Donglai Yang on brief for petitioner.
Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Department of Justice,
Office of Immigration Litigation, Stuart F. Delery, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, and Manuel Palau,
Acting Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation,
on brief for respondent.
January 23, 2013
Per Curiam. Petitioner Margarita Paca is a native and
citizen of the Dominican Republic who illegally entered the United
States in 1992. In 1995, she was determined to be deportable from
the United States and given six months to voluntarily depart. She
remained in the country and filed a motion to reopen her
proceedings in 2011; the immigration court denied her motion, and
the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirmed. Because her
motion to reopen was untimely, we deny her petition for review.
Paca entered the United States without inspection at or
near Mayaguez, Puerto Rico on February 1, 1992. On August 15,
1995, an immigration judge in San Juan, Puerto Rico adjudged her
deportable and gave her until February 15, 1996, to voluntarily
depart. On December 29, 1995, Paca married Angel Luis Rodriguez-
Mangual, a United States citizen. She ignored the order to depart
and currently lives in Louisiana, where she is still married to
Rodriguez. In 1997, her husband filed an I-130 petition on her
behalf based on their marriage, and they were notified in 1998 that
the petition was approved. Such approval is an initial step toward
adjustment to lawful permanent resident status, but it does not
appear that Paca ever obtained such status.
On January 18, 2011, Paca filed a motion with the
immigration court to reopen her removal proceedings; she based her
motion on changed circumstances, citing her marriage to a United
States citizen and approval of her visa petition. The immigration
-2-
judge denied her motion as untimely. The BIA affirmed, and Paca
filed a timely petition to this court.
Under the regulations in effect at the time of Paca's
motion, motions to reopen proceedings before the immigration court
must be filed within ninety days of a final administrative order or
by September 30, 1996, whichever is later. 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.23(b)(1) (2011). The immigration court's final deportation
order was in August 1995, so Paca's deadline to file a motion to
reopen under current regulations1 was September 30, 1996. There
are a number of regulatory exceptions to this deadline, see
id.
§ 1003.23(b)(4)(i)-(iv), but none applies here.2
Paca focuses on a statutory bar to applications for
adjustment of status after defiance of a voluntary departure order;
she argues that this bar prevented her from seeking relief in a
timely fashion, so her motion to reopen should be granted despite
its untimeliness. Section 245(i) of the Immigration and
1
The 1995 regulations set a thirty-day deadline for motions
to reopen, but provided that this deadline "may be excused in the
discretion of the [Immigration and Naturalization] Service where it
is demonstrated that the delay was reasonable and was beyond the
control of the applicant or petitioner." 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(1)(i)
(1995). The current deadlines (the later of ninety days or
September 30, 1996) went into effect with the 1997 regulations.
See 8 C.F.R. § 3.23(b)(4)(i) (1997).
2
The closest is the exception for "changed country conditions
arising in the . . . country to which removal has been ordered," 8
C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(i) (2011), but this requires changes in the
country of removal as opposed to a mere change in personal
circumstances such as Paca's marriage, see Larngar v. Holder,
562
F.3d 71, 76-77 (1st Cir. 2009).
-3-
Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) (2006), allows aliens
who enter the United States without inspection and then marry
United States citizens to apply for adjustment to lawful permanent
resident status. It is true that according to the statute
applicable at the time of Paca's marriage, aliens who failed to
follow a voluntary departure order were barred from applying for
adjustment to permanent resident status for five years after the
scheduled departure date. Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. No.
101-649, § 545(a), 104 Stat. 4978, 5064 (formerly INA
§ 242B(e)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(e)(2)(A)).3 Yet this fact does
not entitle Paca to have her proceedings reopened.
The question of when Paca could have applied for
adjustment to permanent resident status is distinct from the
question of whether Paca's motion to reopen her deportation
proceedings was timely. The timeliness of Paca's motion to reopen
is governed by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23; as discussed above, this
regulation sets September 30, 1996 as the deadline, and no
regulatory exception applies. Perhaps one could construe Paca's
argument as advocating for an equitable exception to the deadline
3
Paca argues that a ten-year bar applied, citing INA
§ 240B(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1) (2006). Yet the ten-year bar
was enacted in 1996, and did not become effective until April 1,
1997, meaning that it applies only to removal proceedings initiated
after that date. See Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, § 304, 110 Stat.
3009-546, 3009-596 to 3009-597 (inserting INA § 240B);
id.
§ 309(a), 110 Stat. at 3009-625 (effective date).
-4-
where the petitioner is eligible for adjustment of status but was
statutorily barred from such adjustment at the time of her
marriage. Even if such an exception existed,4 it would not be
available here. Paca was married December 29, 1995, and the
departure deadline of her voluntary departure order was February
15, 1996. Between December 29, 1995, and February 15, 1996, Paca
could have applied to adjust her status under section 245(i). See
8 U.S.C. § 1255(i) (1994).
In addition, even under Paca's theory of the case, her
motion still would not be timely. Under Paca's theory (which, as
described, is legally incorrect), she was barred from adjustment of
status for ten years after her voluntary departure deadline, until
February 2006. Yet she offers no explanation for why she waited
almost five years more years, until January 2011, to file her
motion. The petition for review is denied.
So ordered.
4
See Adjustment of Status to that Person Admitted for
Permanent Residence; Temporary Removal of Certain Restrictions of
Eligibility, 66 Fed. Reg. 16,383, 16,386 (Mar. 26, 2001) ("The LIFE
Act Amendments contain no special provisions for reopening cases
under Section 245(i) of the Act (8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)) where an alien
already is the subject of a final order of removal, deportation or
exclusion. Accordingly, motions to reopen based on Section 245(i)
will be governed by the . . . current rules regarding motions to
reopen . . . .").
-5-