Opinion ID: 2980170
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Late-Filed Response

Text: Finally, Petitioners contend that the BIA erred by considering the Attorney General’s latefiled response to Petitioners’ motion to reopen. In fact, the Attorney General filed his response to Petitioners’ motion to reopen two days late. Petitioners moved to strike the response, and it appears that the BIA never ruled on that motion. Under the regulations, “[a] motion shall be deemed unopposed unless a timely response is made.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(g)(3). Under those same regulations, however, the “Board may, in its discretion, consider a brief filed out of time.” Id. The BIA thus had the discretion to consider the Attorney General’s responsive brief. Furthermore, deeming a motion to reopen as unopposed does not result in an automatic grant of the motion. Where, as here, Petitioners failed to establish grounds for relief, the BIA retains the discretion to deny relief even when no responsive brief is filed. -21- No. 09-4514 Khakhnelidze, et al. v. Holder