Opinion ID: 40378
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Board Reasonably Interpreted the INA and Its Implementing Regulations

Text: 20 The Board reasonably concluded that under the INA and its implementing regulations, a § 1229(b)(5)(C) motion to reopen an in absentia removal order may be filed only with the IJ. First, the INA makes clear that an in absentia removal order may be rescinded only  by filing a motion to reopen the removal proceedings. 29 The obvious negative implication of this language is that in absentia removal orders may not be appealed to the Board. 30 To challenge an in absentia removal order, then, the alien must do what Singh originally did in this case, viz., file a § 1229(b)(5)(C) motion to reopen the in absentia order with the IJ. 31 But by filing the in absentia motion with the IJ, the alien has exhausted the one class of motions to reopen that the INA permits. 32 For such an alien, therefore, there are no more reopen motions available for filing; thus an attempted filing of a second motion to reopen violates the INA. Assuming that it was permissible for the Attorney General to divide the removal order review process between two extra-statutory entities, 33 it is surely reasonable for the Board to conclude that a motion to reopen an in absentia removal order may only be filed with the IJ. 21 Second, as the Respondent points out in his brief, the rationale undergirding the giving of a more generous period of time in which an alien may move to reopen an in absentia removal order provides no support for giving the alien an extended period of time in which to file such a motion with the Board. It makes sense to give an alien who was not notified of his removal hearing or who was prevented from attending his hearing by exceptional circumstances more time to seek the reopening of his removal order. Under the Board's own regulations, however, it can only hear motions to reopen in case[s] in which it has rendered a decision.  34 This means that by the time the alien's in absentia removal order reaches the Board, that alien has already (1) moved for reopening with the IJ, and (2) appealed the IJ's denial to the Board. After all, only in such circumstances would the Board already have rendered a decision in the alien's case. At such a late stage in the proceedings, the forgiving rationale behind the extended time periods for motions to reopen in absentia removal orders is just not relevant. 22 These two justifications more than adequately demonstrate the reasonableness of the Board's interpretation of the INA and its implementing regulations. We therefore deny Singh's two petitions for review.