ROMERO CARDOSO v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.2021-09-09No. No. 21-9549

Summary · law.co

Holding. The motion to remand to the Board of Immigration Appeals was granted, and the petition for review was dismissed.

The government filed a motion asking the court to send the case back to the Board of Immigration Appeals for reconsideration of the petitioner's request for administrative closure, citing a new precedential decision that had been issued after the original proceedings. The court agreed that reconsideration was warranted in light of this intervening legal development. As part of the remand, the parties agreed that the petitioner would not face removal while the administrative proceedings continued.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a case should be remanded for reconsideration based on intervening precedent
Administrative closure in immigration proceedings
Applicability of newly decided appellate authority to pending cases

Procedural posture

This was a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision, which the court dismissed following the government's unopposed motion to remand the matter for reconsideration in light of intervening precedent.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

This matter is before the court on the Governments Unopposed Motion to Remand to the Board of Immigration Appeals and to Stay the Briefing Schedule, by which it requests that: (1) this court remand to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) for further consideration of Petitioners request for administrative closure, in light of the intervening decision of Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I. & N. Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021); and (2) the briefing schedule in this petition for review be stayed pending the disposition of the motion.

Upon consideration, the motion is granted in part. This matter is remanded to the BIA for further consideration of Petitioners request for administrative closure, in light of the intervening decision of Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I. & N. Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021). Pursuant to agreement of the parties, Petitioner shall not be subject to removal pending completion of proceedings on remand.

The motion is denied in remaining part as moot, to the extent that the Government seeks to stay the briefing schedule in this petition for review pending the disposition of this motion.

This petition for review is dismissed. Each party shall bear its own attorney fees, costs, and expenses.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Per Curiam