Bonilla v. Lynch, No. 12-73853 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner was deported to El Salvador following a misdemeanor firearms conviction. Petitioner subsequently reentered the United States without inspection and then filed a motion to reopen, his second, on the ground that his original lawyer did not properly advise him how to adjust his status after he married a United States citizen. After the Supreme Court announced a change in law that placed in question the legality of the original deportation, petitioner supplemented his motion to reopen. The court concluded that petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling and denied review as to the adjustment of status issue; the court agreed with every circuit that has squarely addressed the issue, and held that it has authority to review refusals to reopen sua sponte to the limited degree that the refusal was based on legal error; and, because the court concluded that the Board’s decision in this case was based on a legally erroneous premise, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the Board’s denial, and remanded to the Board to exercise its broad discretionary authority as to sua sponte reopening against the correct legal backdrop.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel granted in part and denied in part Macario Jesus Bonilla’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying his motion to reopen deportation proceedings. The panel held that Bonilla’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim did not warrant equitable tolling of the limitations period for his untimely-filed motion to reopen for adjustment of status, and denied the petition for review on the adjustment issue. The panel held, however, that the BIA based its decision declining to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen on an erroneous understanding of the legal principles concerning the relationship between prior deportation, reopening of deportation proceedings, and eligibility for INA § 212(c) relief. The panel held that this court has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision denying sua sponte reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind the decision for legal or constitutional error. Holding that the BIA’s decision was based on a legally erroneous premise, the panel granted the petition, vacated, and remanded for the BIA to exercise its broad discretionary authority as to sua sponte reopening against the correct legal backdrop. BONILLA V. LYNCH 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.