Opinion ID: 795029
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: DHS's Motion to Reopen and Terminate Asylum

Text: 14 Hailemichael argues in her petition that the IJ committed a host of procedural errors when reopening, chief among them that the IJ reopened based upon evidence offered by DHS that was available and capable of discovery prior to Hailemichael's asylum hearing. Hailemichael also argues that the IJ impermissibly shifted the burden of proof on the fraud issue from DHS to Hailemichael and that there was insufficient evidence upon which to determine that Hailemichael committed fraud in connection with her asylum application.
15 This Court reviews the decision to reopen proceedings for an abuse of discretion. Haider v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 902, 906 (8th Cir.2006). An abuse of discretion occurs when the BIA's decision is without rational explanation, departs from established policies . . . or where the agency fails to consider all factors presented by the alien or distorts important aspects of the claim. Id. (quotation omitted). Because the BIA adopted the IJ's opinion concerning the decision to reopen, we review the IJ's opinion for an abuse of discretion. Reyes-Morales v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 937, 941 (8th Cir.2006). 16 The Code of Federal Regulations dictates when a motion to reopen may be granted. The Code provides in relevant part: 17 (b) Before the Immigration Court— 18 (1) In general. An Immigration Judge may upon his or her own motion at any time, or upon motion of the Service or the alien, reopen or reconsider any case in which he or she has made a decision, unless jurisdiction is vested with the Board of Immigration Appeals. Subject to the exceptions in this paragraph and paragraph (b)(4), a party may file only one motion to reconsider and one motion to reopen proceedings .... A motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal, deportation, or exclusion, or on or before September 30, 1996, whichever is later .... The time and numerical limitations set forth in this paragraph do not apply to motions by the Service in removal proceedings pursuant to section 240 of the Act. Nor shall such limitations apply to motions by the Service in exclusion or deportation proceedings, when the basis of the motion is fraud in the original proceeding or a crime that would support termination of asylum in accordance with § 208.22(e) of this chapter. 19