### NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION F ile Nam e: 11a0636n.06
No. 09-4521
UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS F OR THE S IXTH CIRCUIT

JOSE LISB OA,

P etitioner -Appellant,

v.
ERIC H. HOL DER, Jr. Attor ney Ge neral, Respondent-Appellee. On Pe tition f or Re view of

an Order of the Board of Im m igration Appeals

O P I N I O N

Before: COLE and ROGERS, Circ uit Jud ges; and SARGUS, Distr ict Judge. *



### SARGU S, District Judge. This case involves an appea l from a d ecision by the Boa rd of

I mmigra tion Appea ls (“B I A”) overr uling an I mmigra tion Court’s g rant of Petitioner/Appellant J ose
L isboa’s motion to reope n remova l proce eding s. Beca u s e t h e BI A incorre ctly conclude d that it
lacke d jurisdiction to consider L isboa’s claims for relief , we vacate and rema

nd this action t o t he

BI A for f urther pr ocee dings.

I.

J ose L isboa (“L isboa”) is a citizen of Br azil. At the ag e of seven, L isboa enter ed the United
States with his pare nts, and beca me a L awf

ul Permane nt Resident of the United States. I n 1994, he
marrie d Kimberly

Klimlz ak, a U nited States citiz en, with whom he ha s one daug hter.

T h e H o n o r a b l e E d m u n d A

. S a r g u s , J r

. , U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t J u d g e f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f O h i o , s i t t i n g * b y d e s i g n a t i o n

.

### A few y ear s afte r the birth of their daug hter, L isboa and Kimberly divorce d. Following their

divorce , L isboa was criminally char g ed in state court with conspirac y to commit f elonious assault, conspirac y to commit possession of drug s, and p ossession of criminal tools. Pursuant to a plea

ag ree ment, he pleade d g uilty to one count of ag g rava ted assault in violation of Ohio Revised Code § 2903.12, and one count of domestic violence in violation of § 2919.25. As a conseque nce of his 1 

### plea, L isboa was sentenc ed to ten y ear s of community control. He ag ree d to leave the United States

v o l u n tarily within forty -five day s and not to seek ree ntry for at least ten y ear s. Be fore he could voluntarily

depar t, however , L isboa was a

rre sted and plac ed in re moval proce eding s.
An I mmigra tion Court found L isboa remova ble on the basis of his criminal convictions and

enter ed an order of remova l. L isboa appea led that order to the BI A but la ter withdrew his appea l, 2



### submitt ed to re moval, and depa rted the U nited States.
After his re m o v al , L i sboa filed a motion for a new trial in his state criminal case

. I n that motion, L isboa arg ued, among other contentions, that he did not enter into a knowing and voluntary plea beca use he thought that he could preve nt deporta tion and that he was denied eff ective assistance
of counsel beca

use his attorney failed to advise him t h at h e co u l d be deporte d. He also filed a 3



### collater al attack in the state trial court, challeng ing his convictions. L ike his motion for a new trial, 4



### L isboa’s collater al attack contende d that he rec eived ineffe ctive assistance of counsel reg arding the plea ag ree ment and remova l. After an oral hear ing, the state trial court denied both motions. L isboa

L i s b o a e n t e r e d h i s p l e a a g r e e m e n t o n S e p t e m b e r 2 4 , 2 0 0 4

. 1

R e m o v a l w a s e f

f e c t e d p u r s u a n t t o I N A § 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i i ) , c o d i f i e d a t 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i i ) , w h i c h 2

a u t h o r i z e s r e m o v a l f

o r c o n v i c t i o n o f a c r i m e o f m o r a l t u r p i t u d e , a n d I N A § 2 3 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( E ) ( i ) , c o d i f i e d a t 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( E ) ( i ) , w h i c h a u t h o r i z e s r e m o v a l f o r c o n v i c t i o n o f

a c r i m e o f

d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e , s t a l k i n g o r c h i l d a b u s e

.
T h e m o t i o n f

o r n e w t r i a l w a s f

i l e d o n A p r i l 2 1 , 2 0 0 6

. 3

L i s b o a f i l e d h i s p e t i t i o n f

o r p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f o n S e p t e m b e r 5 , 2 0 0 6

. 4


### -2-

### then appea led to the Ohio Court of Appea ls in Cuy ahog a County

. Be fore that court, L isboa asser ted the following assig nments of er ror:
I

. Appellant wa s denied his rig ht to due proce ss under the Fourtee nth Amendment to the United States Constit ution and Article I , Section 10 of the Ohio Constit ution.

I I

. Appellant was denied eff ective assistance of counsel in violation of the Six th and Four teenth Amendments to the United States Constit ution; and Article I , Section 10 of the Ohio Constituti on.
I I I . The trial c ourt err ed in fa iling to g rant Appe llant’s motion for new tria l.
The state court of appea ls did not rea ch L isboa’s claims of asser ted err or but instead
deter mined that the s entenc e im posed ex cee d ed t h e statutory maxi mum. Be cause the pl ea served
as consideration for the sentenc e to which L isbo a agr ee d , the court vaca ted bot h the s entenc e and
the under ly ing ple a.
Wit hin fifty -five day s of that decision, L isboa filed a motion in th e I mmigra tion Court to 5



### re open his remova l proce eding s on the g round that the convictions serving as the basi s fo r h i s
removal had been vacated. L isboa arg ued that the I mmigra tion Court had the authorit y t o re o p en

remova l proce eding s despite L isboa’s post-remova l depar ture beca use the statutory provisions of
the I NA give an alien the righ t t o fi l e o n e motion to reope n irrespe ctive of the alien’s prese nce in
the United States. See I

NA § 240(c) (7)( A), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c )(7)

. I n L isboa’s view, 6



### t h e re gu l ati on barr ing the filing of post-depar ture motions to reope n, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d), was

T h e O h i o C o u r t o f A p p e a l s e n t e r e d i t s o r d e r v a c a t i n g L i s b o a ’ s c o n v i c t i o n s o n F e b r u a r y 1 4 , 2 0 0 8

. L i s b o a 5 f i l e d h i s m o t i o n t o r e o p e n w i t h t h e I m m i g r a t i o n C o u r t o n A p r i l 1 0 , 2 0 0 8

. S e c t i o n 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 7 ) g o v e r n s m o t i o n s t o r e o p e n a n d p r o v i d e s t h a t , w i t h e x c e p t i o n s t h a t d o n o t a p p l y t o t h i s 6

c a s e , “ A n a l i e n m a y f

i l e o n e m o t i o n t o r e o p e n p r o c e e d i n g s u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n

. ” 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 7 ) ( A )

. S e c t i o n 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 7 ) ( B ) p r e s c r i b e s t h e c o n t e n t o f s u c h m o t i o n s : “ T h e m o t i o n t o r e o p e n s h a l l s t a t e t h e n e w f a c t s t h a t w i l l b e p r o v e n a t a h e a r i n g t o b e h e l d i f t h e m o t i o n i s g r a n t e d , a n d s h a l l b e s u p p o r t e d b y a f f i d a v i t s o r o t h e r e v i d e n t i a r y m a t e r i a l

. ” S e c t i o n 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 7 ) ( C ) s e t s t h e t i m e l i m i t f o r t h e f i l i n g o f a m o t i o n t o r e o p e n

. I t p r o v i d e s t h a t , w i t h e x c e p t i o n s t h a t d o n o t a p p l y t o t h i s c a s e , “ t h e m o t i o n t o r e o p e n s h a l l b e f i l e d w i t h i n 9 0 d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f e n t r y o f a f i n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r d e r o f r e m o v a l

. ” 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 7 ) ( C )

.



### -3-

### invalid beca use it conflicte d with clea

r statutory lang uag e permitting eac h alien subject to a remova l
order to file one motion to reope n without differ entiating betwee n an alien who is phy sically prese nt
in the Uni ted States and one who is abroa d. I n support of his position, L isboa cited W illiam v. 7


### Gonzales , 4 9 9 F.3d 329 (4th Cir. 2007), a case from the United States Court of Appea ls for the

Four th Circuit, which held the post-depar ture bar invalid as co ntrary to the statutory lang uag e. 8



### L isboa then arg ued that the I mmigra tion Court had authority to reope n the proce eding s “at any time”
pursuant to its reg ulatory sua sponte authority

. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b). The ar gu m en t h er e 9



### appea rs to be that the authority to reope n “at any time” encompa sses motions filed by aliens whose

remova l from the United States has been eff ecte d. The g overnme nt did not file a responsive brief. 1 0



### The I mmigra tion Court g rante d L isboa’s motion to reope n, terminated the char g es of remova bility

ag ainst L isboa, and g rante d L isboa’s motion to vacate the remova l order and terminate remova l

T h e p o s t

- d e p a r t u r e b a r p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : “ A m o t i o n t o r e o p e n o r a m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r s h a l l n o t 7 b e m a d e b y o r o n b e h a l f o f a p e r s o n w h o i s t h e s u b j e c t o f e x c l u s i o n , d e p o r t a t i o n , o r r e m o v a l p r o c e e d i n g s s u b s e q u e n t t o h i s o r h e r d e p a r t u r e f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

. ” 8 C

. F

. R

. § 1 0 0 3

. 2

.
L i s b o a d i d n o t a d d r e s s t h e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s b a r t o t h e s t a t u t o r y m o t i o n

. A l t h o u g h a t l e a s t o n e c o u r t h a s 8 i n t e r p r e t e d W i l l i a m ’ s h o l d i n g t o b e b a s e d i n p a r t u p o n t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e v a c a t u r o f t h e a l i e n ’ s c o n v i c t i o n i n t h a t c a s e r e s t a r t e d t h e 9 0

- d a y p e r i o d f o r f i l i n g , s e e O v a l l e s v

. H o l d e r , 5 7 7 F

. 3 d 2 8 8 , 2 9 5

- 9 6 ( 5 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 9 ) , L i s b o a , f

o r w h a t e v e r r e a s o n , a d d r e s s e d o n l y t h e p o s t

- r e m o v a l b a r , a n d n o t t h e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n , a s a n i m p e d i m e n t t o h i s m o t i o n

.
I n r e l e v a n t p a r t , t h e r e g u l a t i o n g o v e r n i n g a n i m m i g r a t i o n j u d g e ’ s s u a s p o n t e a u t h o r i t y t o r e o p e n r e m o v a l 9 p r o c e e d i n g s p r o v i d e s :

A n Im m i g r a t i o n J u d g e m a y u p o n h i s o r h e r o w n m o t i o n a t a n y t i m e

. . . r e o p e n o r r e c o n s i d e r a n y c a s e i n w h i c h h e o r s h e h a s m a d e a d e c i s i o n , u n l e s s j u r i s d i c t i o n i s v e s t e d w i t h t h e B o a r d
o f I m m i g r a t i o n A p p e a l s

. . . . A m o t i o n t o r e o p e n m u s t b e f i l e d w i t h i n 9 0 d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f
e n t r y o f a f

i n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r d e r o f r e m o v a l , d e p o r t a t i o n , o r e x c l u s i o n

. . . . A m o t i o n t o r e o p e n o r t o r e c o n s i d e r s h a l l n o t b e m a d e b y o r o n b e h a l f o f a p e r s o n w h o i s t h e s u b j e c t o f
r e m o v a l , d e p o r t a t i o n , o r e x c l u s i o n p r o c e e d i n g s s u b s e q u e n t t o h i s o r h e r d e p a r t u r e f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

.

8 C

. F

. R

. § 1 0 0 3

. 2 ( b ) ( 1 )

.
A c c o r d i n g t o t h e g o v e r n m e n t , t h e I m m i g r a t i o n C o u r t C l e r k ’ s O f f i c e e r r o n e o u s l y i n f

o r m e d t h e g o v e r n m e n t 1 0 t h a t n o m o t i o n h a d b e e n f i l e d

. 

### -4-

### proce eding s. The I mmigra tion Court reje cted L isboa’s conten t i o n that he was entitled to file a

motion to reope n as of rig ht pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c )(7) irrespe ctive of his p o s t -r em oval
absenc e from the United States. The I mmigra tion Court ag ree d, howeve r, that it could reope n the 1 1



### matt er s u a s p onte pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b) if L isboa demonstrated an “exceptional
situation” warra n t i n g relief , as required by In re J-J

- , 21 I

. & N. Dec

. 976 (B .I .A. 1997). Rely ing

u p o n prior BI A decisions, the I mmigra tion Court found that the vaca tur of L isboa’s convictions
constituted exceptional circ umstances. I n particula r, the I mmigra tion Court cited In re RodriguezRuiz , 22 I

. & N. Dec

. 1378 (B .I .A. 2000), for the proposition that courts g ener ally g ive full faith and

cre dit to state court actions that vaca te an alien’s criminal conviction, and it cited In re Adamiak , 23

I

. & N. Dec

. 878 (B .I .A. 2006), and In re Picke ring , 23 I

. & N. Dec

. 621, 624 (B .I .A. 2003), for the proposition that a state criminal conviction or plea that is vacated beca use of substantive defe cts in
the under ly ing proce eding s, and not for r ehabilitative or immig ration purpose s, is also vaca ted for immigra tion purposes.
The Gover

nment appea led to the BI A seeking to overturn the I mmigra tion Court’s decision

to reope n L isboa’s remova l proce eding s. The BI A v acated the I mmigra tion Court’s decision and
reinstated the order of remova l. I n rea ching its decision, the BI A first conclude d that the

I mmigra tion Court lacke d jurisdiction to reope n the remova l proce eding s beca use of L isboa’s postremova l depar

ture. I n the alterna tive, the BI A conclude d that, even if there was an exception to the depart u re b ar for sua sponte reope nings, the I mmigra tion Court err ed in reope ning remova l

T h e I m m i g r a t i o n C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t W i l l i a m w a s i n a p p l i c a b l e b e c a u s e L i s b o a ’ s c a s e i s s u b j e c t t o S i x t h 1 1 C i r c u i t p r e c e d e n t , n o t t h e p r e c e d e n t o f t h e F o u r t h C i r c u i t ( w h i c h g o v e r n e d t h e W i l l i a m p e t i t i o n e r ’ s c a s e )

. ( A

. R

. 3 2 3

. ) T h e I m m i g r a t i o n C o u r t a l s o s t a t e d t h a t W i l l i a m w a s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e b e c a u s e L i s b o a ’ s m o t i o n t o r e o p e n w a s n o t t i m e l y f i l e d a f t e r h i s r e m o v a l

. ( A

. R

. 3 2 3

. ) T h e I m m i g r a t i o n C o u r t d i d n o t e l a b o r a t e o n t h e t i m e l i n e s s i s s u e a n d a p p e a r s t o h a v e d i s r e g a r d e d t h e t i m i n g d e f e c t i n t h e W i l l i a m p e t i t i o n e r ’ s m o t i o n , w h i c h w a s f

i l e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y t w o m o n t h s a f t e r t h e 9 0

- d a y d e a d l i n e r e q u i r e d b y 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 7 ) ( C )
a n d 8 C

. F

. R

. § 1 0 0 3

. 2 ( c ) ( 2 )

. S e e W i l l i a m , 4 9 9 F

. 3 d a t 3 3 1 ( n o t i n g t h a t t h e W i l l i a m p e t i t i o n e r w a s r e m o v e d
o n J u l y 1 1 , 2 0 0 5 a n d t h e m o t i o n t o r e o p e n w a s f i l e d m o r e t h a n f

i v e m o n t h s l a t e r , o n D e c e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 )

. 

### -5-

### proce eding s beca use L isboa’s case did not prese nt exceptional circ umstances war ranting sua sponte

reope ning. Procee ding pro se, L isboa filed a motion for rec onsideration of the BI A order reinstating
the remova l order

. I n that motion, L isboa asked the BI A to revie w his case in light of his claim that
he re ceive d ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel in his criminal proce eding s. 1 2



### I mmediately afte r filing his motion for rec onsideration, L isboa filed a petition for revie w in
this Court. The BI A h ad jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(b)( 3), which
confe rs appellate j urisdiction over decisions of i mmigra t i on judge s in remova l proce eding s. This
C ourt has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) , which vests in the Court of Appea ls ex cl u s i v e jurisdiction to revie w final order s of remova l. L isboa’s petition f or revie w was timely filed in this
Court within thirty day s of the BI A’s order

. I

NA § 242(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)( 1). Venue lies in this
Court beca

use the proc eeding s befor e the I mmigra tion J udg e were completed i n Cleveland, Ohio,
within this judicial circ uit. 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)( 2).
We reviewfor a

buse of discr etion the B I A’s decision to g rant or deny a motion to reope n.
Haddad v. Gonzales , 437 F.3d 515, 517 (6th Cir. 2006). T h e BI A abuses its discretion when the
decision to de ny the motion “wa s made without a rational explanation, inexpl icably depar ted from
established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis such as invidious discrimination ag ainst a particula r rac e or g roup.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Although the overa ll
standard of revie w is for abuse of discretion, rele vant leg al issues implicated by the BI A’s decision

are subject to de novo re view. Id.

I n vacating the I mmigra tion Court’s decision and reinstating the order of remova l, the BI A
first conc luded that the I mmigra tion Court lacked jurisdiction to reope n the re moval

A l t h o u g h L i s b o a f

i l e d a p e t i t i o n f

o r r e v i e w i n t h i s C o u r t b e f o r e t h e B I A i s s u e d a d e c i s i o n o n t h e m o t i o n f o r 1 2

r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t h i s C o u r t n e v e r t h e l e s s h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n s i d e r t h e p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w
. S e e S t o n e v

. I

. N

. S

. , 5 1 4 U

. S

. 3 8 6 , 3 9 8

- 4 0 0 ( 1 9 9 5 )

. 

### -6-

### proce eding s beca use L isboa had departed the United S tates subj ect to an or der of remova l. I n the

BI A’s view, the post-depar ture bar at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)( 1) “prohibited the I mmigra tion J udg e
from re opening the [alien’s] removal proce eding s—even sua sponte—afte r his departur e fr om the
United States under a final administrative order of remova l.” (A.R. 41 (citing In re ArmendarezMende z , 24 I

. & N. Dec

. 646 (B I A 2008)).) Title 8 o f t h e C o d e o f Fe dera l Reg ulations, Section 1003.23(b)( 1) contains the provisi on widely ref err ed to as the post-departur e bar . This reg ulatory provision provides in rele vant par t: “A m otion to reope n

. . . shall not be made by or on beha lf of

a person who is the subject of remova l, deportation, or exclusion proc eeding s subsequent to his or
her de parture from the United States.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)( 1). 1 3



### The BI A reje cted L isboa’s relianc e on W illiam , 499 F.3d 329, in arg uing that the reg ulatory post-d ep ar ture bar was contra ry to the statute. Acc ording to the BI A, its decision in In re
Armendare

z-Me ndez had pre viously

considere d the same a

rg uments prese nted in W

illiam and had reje cted them. As of the time of its dec ision in t his case, the BI A observe d that this Court had not held contrary

to Armendare

z-Me ndez ’s position that the pos t-depa rture bar was a “‘jurisdictional’ principle” preve nting the ag ency from reope ning remova l pr ocee dings for aliens alre ady remove d.
This Court rec ently held in Pruidze v. Holder , 632 F.3d 234, 235 (6 t h Cir. 2011), that the

BI A has jurisdiction to consider m o t i o n s t o reope n filed by aliens who have depar ted the United States subject to an order of remova l. Pruidze is dispositive of whether the BI A has jurisdiction to
consider L isboa’s m otion to reopen de spite his post-removal depa rture f rom the United States. I n
Pruidze , the petit ioner was found remo v ab l e based upon a st ate court conviction for a controlledT h i s p r o v i s i o n a p p l i e s t o i m m i g r a t i o n c o u r t s

. A s u b s t a n t i v e l y i d e n t i c a l p r o v i s i o n a p p l i e s t o t h e B I A

. S e e 1 3 8 C

. F

. R

. § 1 0 0 3

. 2 ( d ) ( “ A m o t i o n t o r e o p e n o r a m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r s h a l l n o t b e m a d e b y o r o n b e h a l f o f a p e r s o n w h o i s t h e s u b j e c t o f e x c l u s i o n , d e p o r t a t i o n , o r r e m o v a l p r o c e e d i n g s s u b s e q u e n t t o h i s o r h e r d e p a r t u r e f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

. ” )

. 

### -7-

### substa n ce cr i me. 632 F.3d at 235. Shortly afte r he was remove d from the United States, the

petitioner filed a motion in state court to reope n his criminal proce eding s on the g round that he had

enter ed a g uilty plea without benef it of counsel. Id. T h e s t at e court set aside the conviction and
redoc keted the case

. Id. , at 2 3 5

. The petitioner timely moved the BI A to reope n his remova l

proce eding s on the g round that the state court had set aside the conviction that formed the basis for
his remova l. Id. The BI A denied the motion. Id. Rely ing on Armendare z-Me ndez , a BI A 1 4



### decision upon which the Gover nment heavily relies in this action, the BI A held that it lacke d jurisdiction to hear the petitioner’s motion. Id. Acc ording to the BI A, the post-remova l de parture
bar a t 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d) divested the BI A of jurisdiction to consider motions to reope n filed by
aliens who a

re a broad. Id.
On revie w, the Pruidze court reje cted the proposition that the BI A’s post-depar ture bar ere cts

a j u ri s d i ct i o n al barr ier to enter taining a motion to reope n by a remove d alien located outside the
United States. Id. Ac co rd i ng to Pruidze , no statutory provision or case law supported the BI A’s
conclusion that it could “contr act its power to hear claims that fall p l ai n l y within its statutory jurisdiction.” Id

. at 240 (citing Union Pac. R.R. v. Bhd of Locomotive Eng’rs , 130 S. Ct. 584 (2009); Arbaugh v. Y

& H Corp ., 546 U.S. 500, 510 (2006)). Although the BI A’s decision in this case rested upon its belief that the post-depar ture bar at
8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)( 1) divested the I mmigra tion Court of jurisdiction, the reg ulations use identical lang uag e. Thus, in light of Pruidze , the BI A’s decision in this action must be vacated to the extent
that it denied relief b as ed u p o n an err oneous conclusion that the I mmigra tion Court lacke d jurisdiction to consider L isboa’s motion to reope n. This conclusion does not nece ssarily mean that

T h e t i m e f

r a m e i n P r u i d

z e w a s s i g n i f

i c a n t l y s h o r t e r t h a n t h a t i n t h e c a s e b e f o r e u s

. T h e p e t i t i o n e r ’ s r e m o v a l 1 4 i n P r u i d z e w a s e f

f e c t e d o n A p r i l 2 9 , 2 0 0 9

. H e f i l e d h i s m o t i o n t o r e o p e n h i s c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s s i x d a y s l a t e r

. T h e s t a t e c o u r t s e t a s i d e h i s c o n v i c t i o n o n M a y 1 2 , 2 0 0 9

. O n M a y 2 9 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d h i s m o t i o n t o r e o p e n r e m o v a l p r o c e e d i n g s

. P r u i d z e , 6 3 2 F

. 3 d a t 2 3 5

. 

### -8-

### the departure bar is alway s an invalid reg ulation in the context of a decision by the BI A or

I mmi gra t ion Court not to reope n remova l proce eding s under its sua spont e authority

. As Pruidze
noted:
Whether the re g ulation itself –essentially a mandatory claim-proc essing rule to the eff ect that the [BI A] categ orica lly will rejec t motions to r eopen filed by aliens who have left the country or will alway s trea t such motions as withdrawn upon the alien’s depar ture—is valid is a differ ent matter, one that has divided the lo we r co u rt s, compare Coyt v. Holder , 593 F.3d 902, 907 (9th Cir. 2010) [ (f i n d i n g § 1003.2(d) inapplicable to involuntary depar tures)], and Contreras-Boca n eg ra v. Holder , 629 F.3d 1170, 2010 WL 5209228 (10th Cir. 2010), with W illiam v. Gonzales , 499 F.3d 329 (4th Cir. 2007) [(invalidating 8 C.F .R. § 1003.2(d) in its entirety )], and one on which this court has ta ken a pa rtial position, see Madrigal v. Holder , 572 F.3d 239 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that the depart u re ru le does not apply to the involuntary
remova l of aliens).
Pruidze , 632 F.3d at 238. I t doe s mean, howeve r, that the B I A ca nnot disclaim jurisdiction on the

g round that the a lien is outside the United States, which is the basis for the BI A’s dec ision here.
The BI A’s alterna tive conclusion was based on the assumption that if the I J had jurisdiction

to reope n, such jurisdiction was limit ed to sua sp o n t e re o p en ings. On rema nd, the BI A must
exercise its jurisdiction to deter mine whether or not to uphold the reope ning, whether the reope ning
is considere d to be on L isboa’s motion or sua sponte.
III. Conclusi on
For the fore g oing r easons, we vacate the B I A’s orde r and r emand f or fur ther proc eeding s.

-9-