Montano Cisneros v. US Atty. Gen.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that exhaustion requires only that the petitioner argued the core issue before the BIA, and “hyper-technical” jurisdictional arguments from the government regarding the exhaustion requirement were unavailing
• noting that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii) limits petitioners to one motion to reopen per in absentia removal order
• noting that, “[l]ike the applicant in Gnjalva-Barrera, Petitioners here have satisfied [Lozada’s ] procedural requirements and substantively allege their attorney told them not to attend the hearing”
• “[T]he BIA’s failure to follow its own precedents without providing a reasoned explanation for doing so can constitute an abuse of discretion.”
• “The regulatory provision limiting petitioners to one motion to reopen an in absentia removal order permits one motion to reopen per in absentia removal order.”
• allowing a motion to reopen for each decision of removability

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).