Opinion ID: 694880
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Estrada-Maciel's Oral Motion to Reopen

Text: 19 Estrada-Maciel contends that the BIA erred by letting stand the IJ's order of deportation. This contention lacks merit. 20 The BIA may remand a case decided in absentia for a new hearing if the alien establishes that he had reasonable cause for his absence from the proceedings, Matter of Haim, 19 I. & N. Dec. 641, 642 (BIA 1988), regardless of whether the alien has established prima facie eligibility for the substantive relief sought, Matter of Ruiz, Int.Dec. 3116 (BIA 1989). 1 If an alien seeks to establish reasonable cause on the basis of facts not available to the IJ at the time of the hearing, however, the facts are required to be submitted in writing, and to be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 103.5; INS v. Wang, 450 U.S. 139, 141 (1981) (per curiam). 21 Here, Estrada-Maciel's motion was based on new facts not before the IJ at the time of the deportation hearing and, thus, the motion should have been in writing, and supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 103.5; Wang, 450 U.S. at 141. In addition, the facts which were in the record at the time of the deportation hearing did not establish reasonable cause for Estrada-Maciel's failure to appear at the hearing on time. Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by finding that he failed to meet his burden based on the record at the time of the hearing. 22 Nonetheless, the IJ did mislead Estrada-Maciel by holding a hearing on the merits of his oral motion to reopen, 2 which the BIA subsequently treated as a legal nullity, and further misled Estrada-Maciel by directing his attorney to appeal from the IJ's decision rather than filing a motion to reopen in the proper form. Given these circumstances, in the exercise of our discretion, we stay our mandate for sixty days from the filing of this memorandum to allow Estrada-Maciel the opportunity to file a motion to reopen in the proper form with the BIA. Within fourteen days of the expiration of this period, each party shall file a status report. If Estrada-Maciel files a motion to reopen, the mandate will be further stayed for such time as is necessary for the BIA's disposition of the motion. See Roque-Carranza v. INS, 778 F.2d 1373, 1374 (9th Cir.1985). If Estrada-Maciel fails to file a motion to reopen within the sixty-day period or fails to file a timely status report, the mandate may issue without further notice. 23 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.