if possible; If Respondent sought review, explained what happened]. [Include any other steps Respondent took to pursue case prior to the decision including contacting attorneys.] Pereira Respondent is filing this motion as soon as practicable after finding out about the decision and has displayed reasonable diligence in pursuing his/her rights. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE BOARD SHOULD RECONSIDER RESPONDENT’S REMOVAL ORDER SUA SPONTE. An immigration judge or the Board may reopen or reconsider a case on its own motion at any time. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.23(b)(1); 1003.2(a). The Board invokes its authority to reopen or See reconsider a case following fundamental changes in law. 22 I&N Dec. 1132, See Matter of G-D-, 1135 (BIA 1999). The Supreme Court’s decision in amounts to a fundamental change in Pereira law warranting sua sponte reopening or reconsideration. Section IV.A. See supra Reconsideration is especially warranted in this case because [include other equitable factors]. See Respondent’s Declaration. CONCLUSION The Board should reconsider its prior decision in this case and remand Respondent’s removal proceedings. Dated: Respectfully submitted, [Attach proof of service on opposing counsel]
if possible; If Respondent sought review, explained what happened]. [Include any other steps Respondent took to pursue case prior to the Pereira decision including contacting attorneys.] Respondent is filing this motion as soon as practicable after finding out about the decision and has displayed reasonable diligence in pursuing his/her rights. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE BOARD SHOULD RECONSIDER RESPONDENT’S REMOVAL ORDER SUA SPONTE. An immigration judge or the Board may reopen or reconsider a case on its own motion at any time. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.23(b)(1); 1003.2(a). The Board invokes its authority to reopen or reconsider a case following fundamental changes in law. See Matter of G-D-, 22 I&N Dec. 1132, 1135 (BIA 1999). The Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira amounts to a fundamental change in law warranting sua sponte reopening or reconsideration. See supra Section IV.A. Reconsideration is especially warranted in this case because [include other equitable factors]. See Respondent’s Declaration. CONCLUSION The Board should reconsider its prior decision in this case and remand Respondent’s removal proceedings. Dated: Respectfully submitted, [Attach proof of service on opposing counsel]
2018_5July_AppendixB_MxtoReconsider_Relief_Pereira.docx