In the Matter of Grotta

2 Citing cases

  1. Reyes-Vargas v. Barr

    958 F.3d 1295 (10th Cir. 2020)   Cited 24 times
    Holding the court had jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination that the IJ lacked jurisdiction to reopen

    But as we read the Board’s precedent, an agency’s sua sponte reopening of removal proceedings and an alien’s collateral attack on a removal order are two different things. See In re J–J– , 21 I. & N. Dec. 976, 976, 984 (B.I.A. 1997) (applying an "exceptional circumstances" test for sua sponte reopening); In re La Grotta , 14 I. & N. Dec. 110, 111–12 (B.I.A. 1972) (applying a "gross miscarriage of justice" standard to a collateral attack on a prior removal order outside the sua sponte context). The IJ denied Reyes-Vargas’s motion by merely checking a box marked "[for] the reasons stated in the [government’s] opposition to the motion."

  2. Robledo-Gonzales v. Ashcroft

    342 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2003)   Cited 39 times
    In Robledo-Gonzales, an alien who had been deported reentered the country illegally and was apprehended and charged with the federal crime of illegal reentry.

    Petitioner's Br. at 39. However, despite the BIA's acknowledgment that a petitioner can launch a collateral attack on a prior deportation proceeding if there is a gross miscarriage of justice, see, e.g., Matter of La Grotta, 14 I N Dec. 110, 111-12 (BIA 1972), the BIA found such a miscarriage in only two of the cases cited by Mr. Robledo-Gonzales, Matter of Farinas, 12 I N Dec. 467 (BIA 1967), and Matter of Malone, 11 I N Dec. 730 (BIA 1966). In those cases, the Board determined that there had been a gross miscarriage of justice because the individual should not have been deported based on the law as it existed at the time of the original deportation.