Opinion ID: 564781
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Implicit Amendment of 8 C.F.R. Sec. 3.2

Text: 19 The BIA's decision denying petitioner's motion also effectively amends an existing regulation without notice or opportunity for comment. This supports our conclusion that the decision is arbitrary and capricious. 8 C.F.R. Sec. 3.2 provides that the BIA may hear motions to reconsider and reopen. Such motions may concern deportability and discretionary relief. Among other things, motions to reconsider and reopen may be based upon circumstances which have arisen subsequent to the hearing. 20 That regulation terminates an alien's ability to move to reconsider or reopen upon physical deportation. A motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider shall not be made ... subsequent to ... departure from the United States. Any departure from the United States ... shall constitute a withdrawal of such motion [previously made]. The making of a motion to reconsider or reopen is not otherwise barred. See also 8 C.F.R. Sec. 3.8 (describing motions to reconsider or reopen which seek discretionary relief). 21 Here, however, the BIA's decision bars a motion to reopen or reconsider a decision under Section 212(c) not on the grounds of physical deportation, but because the BIA's order is administratively final. The decision thus prevents a large group of aliens (those subject to orders of deportability issued by the BIA) from making the very motions to reconsider or reopen contemplated by 8 C.F.R. Sec. 3.2. We do not hold that this argument alone would justify vacatur. Combined with the inadequate basis for the decision, however, it further persuades us that the BIA acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. Onslow County, N.C. v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 774 F.2d 607, 610 (4th Cir.1985) (agency could abuse discretion by relying on case-by-case approach to set general standards); NLRB v. Bell Aerospace, 416 U.S. 267, 294, 94 S.Ct. 1757, 1772, 40 L.Ed.2d 134 (1974).