Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-09565/USCOURTS-ca10-15-09565-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent
Eddie Mendiola
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

EDDIE MENDIOLA, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

LORETTA E. LYNCH, United States 

Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

No. 15-9565 

 (Petition for Review) 

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ, O’BRIEN, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

Eddie Mendiola, a citizen of Peru, seeks review of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals’ (BIA or Board) denial of his third motion to reopen removal proceedings. We 

dismiss his petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

submitted without oral argument. 

This order and judgment is an unpublished decision, not binding precedent. 10th 

Cir. R. 32.1(A). Citation to unpublished decisions is not prohibited. Fed. R. App. 32.1. 

It is appropriate as it relates to law of the case, issue preclusion and claim preclusion. 

Unpublished decisions may also be cited for their persuasive value. 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). 

Citation to an order and judgment must be accompanied by an appropriate parenthetical 

notation B (unpublished). Id. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

July 15, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-9565 Document: 01019657385 Date Filed: 07/15/2016 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

I. Background 

No doubt, the parties are familiar with the extensive factual and procedural history 

of this case. We certainly are. See Mendiola v. Holder, 576 F. App’x 828 (10th Cir. 

2014) (unpublished); Mendiola v. Holder, 585 F.3d 1303 (10th Cir. 2009); Mendiola v. 

Mukasey, 280 F. App’x 719, 722 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished); Mendiola v. Gonzales, 

189 F. App’x 810 (10th Cir. 2006) (unpublished). Thus, we recite only those facts 

relevant to our decision. 

Mendiola became a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States in 1989. 

In 1996, he was convicted in California state court of misdemeanor possession of a 

controlled substance (steroids). Four years later, he was convicted of the same offense, 

this time a felony. Based on the latter conviction, he was ordered removed from the 

United States as an aggravated felon. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). His aggravated 

felon status made him ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a).1

 

He filed two motions to reopen with the BIA; both were denied because he had 

already been removed from the United States (post-departure bar). See 8 C.F.R. § 

1003.2(d) (“A motion to reopen . . . shall not be made by or on behalf of a person who is 

the subject of exclusion, deportation, or removal proceedings subsequent to his or her 

departure from the United States.”). 

 

1

 Section 1229b(a) allows the Attorney General to cancel removal if the alien (1) 

has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence for 5 years or more, (2) has resided 

in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status, and 

(3) has not been convicted of an aggravated felony. 

Appellate Case: 15-9565 Document: 01019657385 Date Filed: 07/15/2016 Page: 2 
- 3 - 

In 2010, the Supreme Court decided a second state law conviction for possession 

of a controlled substance qualifies as an aggravated felony under the immigration laws 

only if it was enhanced based on the fact of the prior conviction, in other words, only if 

the defendant was convicted in state court as a recidivist. Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 

560 U.S. 563, 581-82 (2010). Two years later, we invalidated the post-departure bar 

regulation (8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d)) as inconsistent with Congress’ intent to afford each 

noncitizen a statutory right to file one motion to reopen under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7). 

See Contreras-Bocanegra v. Holder, 678 F.3d 811, 813 (10th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 

Armed with these decisions, Mendiola filed a third motion to reopen with the BIA, asking 

it to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen his case. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (“The 

[BIA] may at any time reopen or reconsider on its own motion any case in which it has 

rendered a decision.”). He claimed the post-departure bar no longer precluded his motion 

and his second California conviction for possession of a controlled substance was not an 

aggravated felony under Carachuri-Rosendo. Therefore, he argued, he was eligible for 

cancellation of removal. 

The BIA denied relief. It concluded Mendiola’s removal had terminated his LPR 

status and therefore he was no longer eligible for cancellation of removal under § 

1229b(a). See supra n.1. Mendiola sought judicial review. We lacked jurisdiction to 

review the Board’s discretionary decision to deny sua sponte reopening but could review 

whether it applied the correct law in making its decision. Mendiola, 576 F. App’x at 837. 

We ultimately decided we could not tell from the Board’s decision whether it had done 

Appellate Case: 15-9565 Document: 01019657385 Date Filed: 07/15/2016 Page: 3 
- 4 - 

so. Id. at 843-45. That is because the decision seemed to conflict with footnote 8 in 

Carachuri-Rodendo, which suggested that if a petitioner has not been convicted of an 

aggravated felony and continues to satisfy the requirements of § 1229b(a), he may seek 

cancellation of removal even though he has been removed. Id. at 843-44 (quoting

Carachuri-Rodendo, 560 U.S. at 573 n.8). Because the BIA’s decision did not address 

this tension, we remanded to the Board “to consider the effect of Carachuri–Rosendo

footnote eight on removed persons’ eligibility for cancellation of removal, and to 

explain—if it persists in its conclusion that Mr. Mendiola is, as a consequence of his 

removal, categorically barred from seeking cancellation—on what basis it purports to 

reconcile that conclusion with the seemingly contradictory indication in footnote eight.” 

Id. at 845. However, we emphasized (twice) that “the ultimate decision whether or not to 

grant sua sponte reopening remains entirely in the Board’s discretion.” Id. at 837, 845. 

On remand, the BIA concluded it was “difficult” to reconcile its prior decision 

with footnote 8 because “the origin and basis for the footnote . . . are unclear . . . and 

prior to this reference [the Board was] unaware of any applicant for cancellation of 

removal who was found eligible to pursue such application from abroad following 

removal.” (R. at 7.) It noted the “Department of Homeland Security’s brief before the 

Board does not provide any insight into [footnote 8] and whether it possibly had its 

origins in an argument or position advanced by the government before the [Supreme] 

Court.” (Id. at 7 n.1.) Nevertheless, the Board concluded that even assuming Mendiola 

was eligible for cancellation of removal, sua sponte reopening was not warranted: 

Appellate Case: 15-9565 Document: 01019657385 Date Filed: 07/15/2016 Page: 4 
- 5 - 

Having considered the entirety of circumstances presented in this case, 

including the respondent’s significant and lengthy criminal history and his 

immigration history, we are simply not persuaded that [he] has demonstrated that 

such a favorable exercise of discretion is warranted. See Matter of J-J-, 21 I & N 

Dec. 976 (BIA 1997); Matter of G-D-, 22 I & N Dec. 1132, 1133-34 (BIA 1999) 

(stating that “as a general matter, we invoke our sua sponte authority sparingly, 

treating it not as a general remedy for any hardships created by enforcement of 

time and number limits in the motions regulations, but as an extraordinary remedy 

reserved for truly exceptional situations”).2

 

(R. at 8.) 

II. Discussion

The government tells us we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to 

invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen Mendiola’s removal proceedings. We agree. 

“[W]e have no jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen removal 

proceedings sua sponte.” See Salgado–Toribio v. Holder, 713 F.3d 1267, 1271 (10th Cir. 

2013); Infanzon v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1359, 1361 (10th Cir. 2004) (“[W]e do not have 

 

2

 For the same reasons, the Board rejected Mendiola’s argument (raised for the 

first time on remand) that the time for filing his motion to reopen should be equitably 

tolled based on a change in the law, i.e., our decision in Contreras-Bocanegra, which 

eliminated the post-departure bar, which in turn had prevented the Board from exercising 

jurisdiction over his prior motions to reopen. Mendiola argues the Board applied the 

wrong standard in denying his request for equitable tolling. We decline to consider this 

issue because it violates the mandate rule, which requires “trial court conformity with the 

appellate court’s terms of remand.” United States v. West, 646 F.3d 745, 748 (10th Cir. 

2011). This rule has been extended to administrative agencies. See Padilla-Caldera v. 

Holder, 637 F.3d 1140, 1145 (10th Cir. 2011). The remand language in our previous 

decision limited remand “to clarify[ing] the legal basis for [the Board’s] decision, and—

in light of that clarification—to rule on Mr. Mendiola’s motion for sua sponte reopening 

as it sees fit in the exercise of its discretion.” Mendiola, 576 F. App’x at 845. By 

considering Mendiola’s argument seeking equitable tolling based on a change in law, the 

Board exceeded the scope of our remand. While there are exceptions to the mandate rule, 

none apply here. United States v. Webb, 98 F.3d 585, 587 (10th Cir. 1996). 

Appellate Case: 15-9565 Document: 01019657385 Date Filed: 07/15/2016 Page: 5 
- 6 - 

jurisdiction to consider [a] petitioner’s claim that the BIA should have sua sponte 

reopened the proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) because there are no standards by 

which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion.”). 

Of course, as we explained in our previous decision in this case, we do have 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) to review constitutional claims and questions 

of law underpinning the Board’s decision not to reopen a case on its own motion. 

Mendiola, 576 F. App’x at 837. But none remain. On remand, the Board assumed 

Mendiola remained eligible for cancellation of removal even though he had lost his LPR 

status upon being removed. By doing so, it eliminated any possibility its decision 

denying sua sponte reopening was based on an error of law, i.e., that it conflicted with 

footnote 8 in Carachuri–Rosendo. Its remaining decision—that Mendiola’s criminal and 

immigration history3

 did not warrant an exercise of its sua sponte authority—is purely 

discretionary and unreviewable. 

Mendiola resists this result, saying the Board did not have the discretion to refuse 

to reopen his removal proceedings because his removal was based on an erroneous 

interpretation of the law. He relies on the Supreme Court’s decisions in I.N.S. v. Doherty, 

502 U.S. 314 (1992), and Carachuri-Rosendo, and the Board’s decision in In re G-D-, 22 

 

3

 In addition to his two California convictions, Mendiola’s criminal history 

includes a California conviction for assault with a deadly weapon and an Idaho 

conviction for accessory to a felony. His immigration history includes the fact that after 

he was initially removed from the United States in March 2005, he reentered illegally 

several months later. He was removed again in 2010. 

Appellate Case: 15-9565 Document: 01019657385 Date Filed: 07/15/2016 Page: 6 
- 7 - 

I & N Dec. 1132 (BIA 1999) (en banc).4

 None of these cases is helpful. 

The only holding in Doherty commanding a majority was that the Attorney 

General did not abuse his discretion in denying reopening for either of two reasons: (1) 

Doherty had not presented new evidence warranting reopening and (2) he had not 

explained why he had withdrawn his claims at the deportation hearing. 502 U.S. at 317, 

322-24. Mendiola concedes that his argument in this case stems from one of the reasons 

the Attorney General gave in Doherty for denying the motion to reopen: “[The Attorney 

General] also noted that a change in law ordinarily does not support a motion to reopen 

unless the change pertains to the rules of the proceeding at which the deportation was 

ordered.” Id. at 325. Only four justices relied on that reason (as well as the others) to 

affirm. It is not part of the Court’s holding. In any event, a change in law after removal 

may be, as the government has said, a proper basis for reopening but that does not elevate 

it to a requirement. 

Carachuri-Rosendo is equally unavailing. It was decided on direct review of the 

BIA’s decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s order that Carachuri-Rosendo was 

ineligible for cancellation of removal because his second conviction for possession of a 

controlled substance constituted an aggravated felony. Therefore, the Court did not 

 

4

 In his opening brief, Mendiola quotes from the syllabus of the Doherty decision 

(page 316). The syllabus is prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the reader’s 

convenience and does not constitute the Court’s decision. United States v. Detroit 

Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337 (1906). The government makes a similar 

mistake in its brief, quoting from the dissenting opinion in In re G-D, 22 I & N Dec. 1132 

(BIA 1999). 

Appellate Case: 15-9565 Document: 01019657385 Date Filed: 07/15/2016 Page: 7 
- 8 - 

address if or when the BIA is required to sua sponte reopen removal proceedings when a 

change in the law renders one previously found ineligible for cancellation of removal 

eligible for such relief. 

The Board’s decision in In re G-D- is more to the point. However, in that case, 

the Board simply discussed when it may sua sponte revisit a prior decision based on a 

fundamental change in the law. See Mendiola, 576 F. App’x at 841 (“[T]he Board has 

acknowledged that sua sponte reopening may be warranted in certain cases that involve a 

fundamental change in law. See In re G–D–, 22 I. & N. Dec. at 1135.”) (emphasis 

added); see also Barrie v. Holder, 353 F. App’x 523, 524 (2d Cir. 2009) (unpublished) 

(“[T]he BIA may revisit its prior decision in the wake of a fundamental change in law 

pursuant to its sua sponte authority . . . . We lack jurisdiction to consider such challenges 

because the BIA’s exercise of its sua sponte authority is ‘entirely discretionary’.”) 

(emphasis added). Indeed, in our previous decision, we emphasized that “the ultimate 

decision whether or not to grant sua sponte reopening remains entirely in the Board’s 

discretion.” Id. at 845. We made no exception for Mendiola’s “change in the law” 

argument.5

 

 

5

 In a footnote in his opening brief, Mendiola claims the BIA routinely sua sponte 

reopens cases where there has been a fundamental change in the law. We decline to 

address this issue because it is raised only in a footnote. See United States v. Hardman, 

297 F.3d 1116, 1131 (10th Cir. 2002) (en banc) (“Arguments raised in a perfunctory 

manner, such as in a footnote, are waived.”). In any event, merely citing four cases in 

which the BIA decided to sua sponte reopen a case based on a fundamental change in the 

law hardly demonstrates such practice is routine, especially without any evidence of how 

many such cases appear before the BIA in any given year. 

Appellate Case: 15-9565 Document: 01019657385 Date Filed: 07/15/2016 Page: 8 
- 9 - 

The petition for review is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. 

Entered by the Court: 

 Terrence L. O’Brien 

 United States Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 15-9565 Document: 01019657385 Date Filed: 07/15/2016 Page: 9