Garcia Arredondo v. Lynch, No. 14-71907 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner seeks review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of her motion to reopen. Petitioner's motion to reopen argued that exceptional circumstances prevented petitioner from attending the hearing. The court concluded that, while petitioner's explanation does not reveal great sophistication, planning, or resources, it is not inherently unbelievable or incredible, and therefore the IJ and the BIA erred in disregarding petitioner's explanation. The court held that a car’s mechanical failure does not alone compel granting a motion to reopen based on “exceptional circumstances.” In this case, petitioner's explanation, taken as true, does not constitute exceptional circumstances where petitioner took an unnecessarily long route to court, giving her little margin for error; she did not use the $500 she had to reach the court on time but used it instead to tow her car to a mechanic and prepaid for the repair; and she failed to contact her lawyer or the court to inform them of the problem. The court held that mechanical failure coupled with decisions to leave insufficient time to account for routine delays and to pay for car repairs instead of transportation to court, does not constitute exceptional circumstances. Accordingly, the court denied the petition.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel denied Maricarmen Garcia Arredondo’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of her motion to reopen to rescind the in absentia removal order entered against her. The panel held that Arredondo’s explanation regarding why she failed to appear for her Immigration Judge hearing was not inherently unbelievable or incredible, and that the IJ and BIA thus erred in disregarding it. The panel held, however, that even if true, Arredondo’s explanation did not constitute the requisite exceptional circumstances sufficient to grant a motion to reopen. As a matter of first impression, the panel held that a car’s mechanical failure does not alone compel granting a motion to reopen based on exceptional circumstances.
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.