Hernandez, Hugo Alberto

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that generally the BIA’s decision whether to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen is not subject to judicial review
• holding that there was no legal or constitutional error as the BIA’s “decision evinces no misunderstanding of the agency’s broad discretion to grant or deny sua sponte relief”
• holding that the implicit denial of an equitable tolling claim was not “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law” so as to warrant reversal of the agency’s decision (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny reopening where petitioner did not show diligent pursuit of her rights in the years between her removal and the new case on which she relied
• holding that the BIA “implicitly rejected” equitable tolling where it found that the motion was untimely by more than two years and that petitioner “had a full and fair opportunity” to contest her removability “but failed to do so”
• acknowledging that our prior precedent left open the possibility that a petitioner could establish legal error sufficient to permit review of the BIA’s sua sponte decision by showing that the BIA deviated from its own “settled course”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).