Opinion ID: 78340
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: bia holding

Text: In C-W-L-, the BIA held an alien who is subject to a final order of removal must satisfy the requirements for a motion to reopen under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii) in order to file a successive asylum application. See 24 I. & N. Dec. at 354. The BIA reasoned to interpret the successive asylum application provision as an independent basis for filing an asylum application at any time, including when a final order of removal is in place, would render [8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii)] (and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii)) superfluous and would negate the effect of regulations granting jurisdiction to [the BIA] and the Immigration Courts. Id. at 351. The BIA also rejected the argument that the regulatory history related to the DOJ's proposed rule implementing 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) meant a motion to reopen was never required in order to pursue a successive asylum application. Id. at 351-52. The BIA observed [t]he cited regulatory history nowhere states that an alien may file unlimited `successive asylum applications' after the entry of a final administrative order of removal without filing a motion to reopen. Id. at 352. Rather, the regulations implementing the successive asylum application provision were silent at best on the issue of reopening, most likely because the requirement of an accompanying motion to reopen once a final order of removal has been entered is clearly set forth in other parts of the statutory and regulatory scheme. Id. Moreover, there was a preferable explanation for the regulatory history that reconciled the competing statutory provisions: [T]he language at section [1158(a)(2)(D)] and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4 that permits an updated or successive asylum application based on changed personal circumstances applies in conjunction with section [1229a(c)(7)(C)] and 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c) and 1003.23(b) to permit such an application at any time during proceedings before the entry of a final order of removal or within the 90-day deadline for a motion to reopen. Outside of those circumstances, changed country conditions must be shown. Id. at 352-53. As a result, the BIA held that an alien who is subject to a final order of removal cannot file a successive asylum application, except as part of a timely and properly filed motion to reopen or one that claims that the late motion is excused because of changed country conditions. Id. at 354.