Term: 2014
Docket: 14-185
Mata v. Lynch
- Pro
14-185 MATA V. LYNCH DECISION BELOW: 558 Fed.Appx. 366 ORDER OF JANUARY 16, 2015: WILLIAM PETERSON, ESQUIRE, OF HOUSTON, TEXAS, IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THIS CASE, AS AMICUS CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF THE JUDGMENT BELOW. CERT. GRANTED 1/16/2015 QUESTION PRESENTED: Given that the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals have conclusively and affirmatively held that they have jurisdiction over denials by the Board of Immigration Appeals of requests to equitably toll motions to reopen, the question presented is: Whether the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in this case in holding that it has no jurisdiction to review Petitioner's request that the Board equitably toll the 9O-day deadline on his motion to reopen as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel under 8 C.F.R. § l003.2(c)(2). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 13-60253
The case of Mata v. Lynch involved Noel Reyes Mata, an immigrant from Mexico who was ordered to be deported after being convicted for assault in Texas. His attorney failed to appeal the decision within the 90-day deadline, leading him to file a motion with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) arguing that his lawyer's negligence deprived him of his right to due process. The BIA rejected this argument and refused to reopen his case because it believed it lacked jurisdiction over such claims based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Mata then appealed this decision up through federal courts until it reached the Supreme Court which ruled in favor of Mata by a vote of 8-1 in June 2015. The court held that federal appeals courts do have jurisdiction over motions made before immigration agencies when they involve questions about statutory interpretation or application, including those related to deadlines and exceptions for filing appeals. This ruling clarified that immigrants can challenge deportation orders if their attorneys mishandle their cases and miss important deadlines, thereby ensuring greater accountability among immigration lawyers while also providing more legal protections for immigrants facing removal proceedings.
In the dissenting opinion for Mata v. Lynch, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to review decisions made by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). He contended that under federal law, courts are prohibited from reviewing any decision or action of the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security where such discretion is specified under this subchapter to be in their sole and unreviewable discretion. According to him, since Congress had given BIA exclusive authority over motions to reopen deportation proceedings, its decisions were not subject to judicial review. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority's interpretation of a provision allowing court reviews if constitutional claims or questions of law were raised. In his view, this did not apply as Mata’s case was about an application deadline rather than a constitutional claim or question of law.
