The Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument in Mata v. Lynch, a case that will clarify whether federal courts of appeals can review Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decisions denying motions to reopen removal proceedings based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The case directly addresses a circuit split and affects how you advise clients on remedies when their prior counsel fails to timely file briefs or take other critical steps in removal proceedings.
What changed
The Supreme Court will consider in Mata v. Lynch whether courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of an immigrant’s motion to reopen his removal proceedings based upon a claim that his original counsel was ineffective. The Fifth Circuit held that such review is not available, creating a ten-to-one circuit split—and notably, even the federal government is not defending the Fifth Circuit precedent at issue.
The underlying facts are instructive: Petitioner Noel Reyes Mata is an undocumented immigrant who pleaded guilty in 2010 to assaulting his wife, a crime involving “family violence” under Texas law, and was placed into removal proceedings the day after his plea. Although Mata conceded his removability, he applied for cancellation of removal in light of the hardship his removal would present to his children. Through his counsel, Mata filed a timely appeal and noted that a brief in support would be forthcoming, but no such brief was ever filed—even after the BIA denied Mata’s counsel’s motion for an extension.
Acting through new counsel, Mata filed a motion to reopen his removal proceedings before the BIA in January 2013, arguing that his prior counsel had been ineffective in failing to timely file a brief in support of his appeal, and that although the motion was filed after the ninety-day statutory deadline, he was entitled to equitable tolling of that deadline owing to his prior counsel’s ineffectiveness. The BIA disagreed and denied the motion, holding that although the ninety-day deadline was subject to equitable tolling, Mata could not make out a claim for such relief because he could not show how his original counsel’s ineffectiveness had resulted in prejudice.
Why it matters
This case directly determines whether you can appeal a BIA denial of an ineffective-counsel motion to reopen. If the Fifth Circuit’s position (no appellate review) prevails, your clients lose access to federal appellate oversight of BIA decisions on these motions—even when the BIA’s legal reasoning is flawed. Conversely, if the Court reverses, your appellate options expand materially.
The case also clarifies the interplay between equitable tolling and the ninety-day deadline for motions to reopen under INA § 240(c)(7). The BIA acknowledged that the ninety-day deadline is subject to equitable tolling, but held that Mata could not demonstrate the prejudice needed to obtain such relief, because he offered no explanation for why his Texas conviction was not a “crime involving moral turpitude,” and his claimed hardship was not the kind of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” required for cancellation of removal. The Supreme Court’s decision will clarify whether the prejudice analysis in the IAC context (i.e., would the client have prevailed but for the error?) applies separately from the merits of the underlying relief sought.
Way forward
- Review your appellate jurisdiction: Determine whether your circuit permits appellate review of BIA decisions denying motions to reopen based on ineffective counsel; this case may shift that landscape.
- Document counsel errors early: If a client comes to you after prior counsel errors, preserve a clear factual record of the deficient performance and any resulting prejudice—the BIA will demand it.
- Distinguish between error and prejudice: Even if prior counsel’s performance was deficient, you must separately establish that the client would have obtained a better outcome absent the error. This two-step analysis will likely persist regardless of the Court’s ruling on jurisdiction.
- Monitor the decision closely: Once the Court rules, update your appellate practice protocols to reflect any changes to the availability of federal court review of BIA IAC motions.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is complex and subject to frequent change. You should consult with a licensed immigration attorney to discuss your specific situation and ensure your strategy complies with current law and BIA/court precedent. Verify all claims and citations against the primary source material linked above and the current state of the law in your jurisdiction.