REYNOSO-CISNEROS v. GONZALES
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in REYNOSO-CISNEROS v. GONZALES, No. 05-71803, an administrative appeal. The panel consisted of Harry Pregerson, Stephen Reinhardt, and A. Wallace Tashima, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Maria Dolores Reynoso-Cisneros, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (”BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen exclusion proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law, including an agency’s determination of its own jurisdiction, de novo. See Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1215 (9th Cir. 2005). We grant the petition for review and remand. [1] This case is governed by our recent decision in Lin v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2007). Lin was deported from the United States, re-entered unlawfully, and filed a motion to reopen his proceedings with an immigration judge (”IJ”). Id. at 980. The IJ denied the motion under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), which states “[a] motion to reopen or to reconsider shall not be made by or on behalf of a person who is the subject of removal, deportation, or exclusion proceedings subsequent to his or her departure from the United States.” Id. We held that the regulation did not preclude jurisdiction over motions to reopen filed by petitioners, like Lin, who had been lawfully removed after the completion of immigration proceedings, and only barred motions filed by an . . .