Bravo-Bravo v. Garland

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, if an alien has reentered the United States illegally after having been remove, “the prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5).

Bravo reentered the United States illegally after being removed once before and was removed again under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). Bravo sought review of an opinion by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) which upheld the decision by the Immigration Judge (IJ) to deny Bravo’s motion to reopen his prior removal proceedings after reentering the U.S. illegally. Bravo argued that the BIA erred in holding that the IJ lacked jurisdiction to reopen his prior removal order sua sponte; and the IJ had jurisdiction to consider his motion to reopen his removal because an alien may collaterally challenge a removal order when it results in a gross miscarriage of justice. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, if an alien has reentered the United States illegally after having been removed, “the prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). The Court held that neither the IJ or the BIA had jurisdiction to address Bravo’s removal order because it is barred under § 1231(a)(5). The Court reasoned that the BIA correctly determined that is lacked jurisdiction over Bravo’s collateral challenge. The Court further found that § 1231(a)(5) “to unambiguously bar reopening a reinstated prior removal order” and it divested the BIA “of jurisdiction to reopen a removal proceeding after reinstatement of the underlying order.” Cuenca v. Barr, 956 F.3d 1079 at 1084. PETITION DENIED.