N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
EVA M E D INA-R ODR IGUEZ,

Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 09-73545 Age n c y No. A093-237-665
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 10, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : C LIFTON a

n d C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s, a nd R U FE, * * Distric t Judge
. Pe titione r Eva M e dina -R odrigue z pe titions for re vie w of the de c ision of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s de ny ing he r m otion to re c onside r its e arlie r de c ision. TheB IA pre viously de nie d he r m otion to re o pe n re m ova l proc e e dings to



# F IL ED NOV 02 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble C ynthia

M . R ufe , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of Pe nnsy lva n ia , sitting by

de signa tion.a

pply for a djustm e nt of sta

tus. W e grant the pe t ition a n d re m an d to the B IA for furthe r c onside ra tion. An a pplic a nt who fa ils to de

pa rt within the

grante d pe riod of volunta ry de pa rture is ine ligiblefor te n y e ars for a djustm e nt of sta tus a s a m atte r of la

w. 8 U.S.C . § 1229c (d)(1). In he r m otion to re c onside r, M e dina -R odrigue z c onte nde d that he r fa ilure to post the

bond for volunta

ry de p arture e xe m

pts he r from

the
c onse q ue nc e s of fa iling to de

pa rt. Se e In ReDiaz-Ruac ho , 24 I. & N. De c . 47, 47 (B IA 2006) (finding tha

t be c a use “ the posting of a

volunta ry de pa rture bond is a
c ondition pre c e de nt to pe rm ission to de pa rt volunta rily at the c onc lusion of a
re m ova l proc e e d ing . . . a n a lie n who fa ils to m e e t the volunta ry de pa rture bond
re quire m e nt is not subje c t to the pe na ltie s ” of the INA). The B IA a c c e pte d tha t “ if the re sponde nt did not post he r volunta ry de p arture bond, she would not be subje c t to the pe na ltie s for fa i l ing to depa rt.” Howe ve r, the B IA se e m e d to find dispositive the fa c t tha

t “ re sponde nt fa ile d to submit with he r m o tion to re ope n a n a ffidavit sta ting tha t she did not post he

r volunta ry de pa rture bond.” M otions to re ope n m

ust be “ supporte d by

a ffidavits or other e vide ntia ry m ate ria l .” 8 U.S.C . § 1229(a )(7)(B ). Howe v e r, “ the B IA re ta ins the a bility to wa ive proc e d ura l e rrors, and ha s done so whe n the c irc um s ta nc e s wa rrant suc h a c tion.” K onstantinov

a v . I.N .S. , 195 F.3d 528, 530 (9th C ir. 1999). In K onstantinov

a , the
2a lle ge d proc e dura l de fe c t wa s a fa ilure to inc lude an I-485 with a m o tion to
re m and. Id. at 529-30. Simila rly , M e dina -R odrigue zhe re fa ile d to inc lude an a ffidav it to support he

r c la im . B e c a

use “ fa c ts pre se nte d in a ffidav its supporting a
m otion to re o pe n m

u st be a c c e p te d a s true unle ss inhe re ntly unbe l ie va

ble , ” Bhasin
v . Gonzale

s , 423 F.3d 977, 987 (9th C i r. 2005), M e dina -R odrigue z ’ s fa i lure to inc l ude an

a ffidavit he re is a

proc e dura l de fe c t

the B IA c o uld ha

ve wa ive d. The gove rnm e nt did not re fute the fa c tua l c la i m m a de by M e dina -R odrigue z be fore the B IA. 1 Eve n be fore this c ourt, the gove rnm e nt did not dispute the fa c t ua l a c c ura c y of he r c la im . Its position wa s tha t it did not know one

wa y or the othe r whe the r she fa ile d to post a

bond, though the

A-file in the posse ssion of thegove rnm e nt should provide a de finitiveanswe r to tha

t que stion. While the B IA’ s ruling wa s pe rm issiblein light of M e dina -R odrigue z ’ s fa ilure to inc lude a

n a ffidavit, it wa s not c om pe lle d. B e c a

u se the B IA fa ile d to
a c knowle dge its a

b ility to wa ive a

proc e dura l e rror, it is unc e rta in whe the r the B IA would ha ve e xe rc ise d its disc re tion a nd wa ive d this de fe c t. R e m and is the re fore

1 “ The A-File doc um e nts the history of im m igra nts’ and othe rs’ inte ra c tions with c om pone nts of theDe pa

rtm e nt of Hom e la

nd Se c urity

and pre de c e ssor a ge nc ie s.” De nt v . Holde r , 627 F.3d 365, 372 (9th C ir. 2010). W e have he l d tha t individuals a

re e ntitle d to a

c opy of the A-File upon re que st, but ha ve not de te rm i ne d if it should be produc e d routine ly

without a re que st. Id

at 374-75. In any e ve nt, the e xiste nc e of the A-File m e ans the gove rnm e nt is in a position to de te rm i ne whe t

h e r or not M e dina -R odrigue z poste d a bond. 3a

ppropria te for the B IA to c o nside r whe t he r it will e xe rc ise this disc re tion. Se e Guzman v . I.N

.S. , 318 F.3d 911, 913-14 (9th C ir. 2003) (finding re m a n d
a ppropria te whe re the B IA “ la

bore d unde r a m isa ppre he nsion of fa c t” in e xe rc ising its disc re t ion a

nd ultim ate l y

arriving a

t a ruling tha

t wa s pe rm i ssible but not
c om pe lle d). The B IA a lso found tha

t M e dina -R odrigue z ha d

not pre s e nte d a

ny e vide nc e that she wa s inspe c t e d a

nd a dm itte d by an im

m igration offic e r for purpose s of
se c t ion 245(a) of the INA, 8 U.S.C . § 1255(a ). Howe ve r, the re c ord doe s c onta in
som e e vide nc e from

M e d i na -R odrigue z ’ s Applic at ion for C anc e lla tion of R e m ova l
and Adjustm e nt of Sta

tus tha t she wa s inspe c te d a

nd a dm i tte d whe n she re -e nte re d the c ountry

in 1990 a n d 1991. She a lso te stifie d in a he aring be fore an Im

m igration Judge that she pre viously ha d a work pe rm it whic h she use d whe n she “ we nt through theline ” in 1990, but whic h wa s subse q

ue ntly c o nfisc ate d. On re m and, the B IA should c onside r whe the r this e vide nc e e sta b lishe s he r e ligibility for
a djustm e nt of sta

tus. In light of the

fore going, we grant the pe tition for re vie w, va c ate the B IA’ s de c ision de ny ing M e d i na -R odrigue z 's m otion to re c onside r, a nd re m and to theB IA for a n e w e xe rc ise of disc re t ion c onc e rning M e dina -R odrigue z ’ s m otion to
re c o nside r.
4Pe tition G RANT E D and m atte r RE M ANDE D
.

5