Escobar-Marroquin v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the 90-day period for reopening runs from the date of the voluntary departure order, not the date of departure
• recognizing that on remand, the BIA could “choose not to exercise its sua sponte authority” and “that such a decision would be unreviewable”
• explaining that 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26 did not resolve Mahmood’s case because he filed his motion to reopen before the rule was promulgated
• noting that an 12 untimely motion may be considered under the agency’s sua 13 sponte authority, we lack jurisdiction to review such 14 decision, but we may remand if the agency misperceived the 15 law
• remanding the matter to either the BIA or IJ to determine in the first instance whether a motion to reopen accompanied by a motion to stay voluntary departure constituted a withdrawal under Dada
• identifying Supreme Court precedent and an amendment to 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(e)(1)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).