Kerrigan v. TDX Construction Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[njeither the [BIA] nor the [IJ] has jurisdiction to consider a new asylum claim in proceedings that are administratively final and where the standards for reopening are not satisfied.”
• noting that, in the case presented, the applicant “filed no motion to reopen proceedings, a prerequisite to our taking up any issue arising in his case, given the entry of the removal order against him”
• stating that “[t]he only way for us to acquire jurisdiction over a petition for further relief (such as a ‘successive asylum application’)” when a final order of removal is in place “is through a properly filed motion to reconsider or reopen”
• interpreting INA §§ 208(a)(2)(D), 240(c)(7), and 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2, 1208.4
• jurisdiction over a motion to reopen lies with the BIA when it was the last body to render a decision in the case
• “Neither the Board nor the Immigration Judge has jurisdiction to consider a new asylum claim in proceedings that are administratively final and where the standards for reopening are not satisfied.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).