Background
Achhar Singh, a native and citizen of India, entered the United States in 2013 as a nonimmigrant visitor and remained beyond his authorized six-month stay. After the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings, Singh conceded removability and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge denied relief based in part on an adverse credibility finding, the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, and the Sixth Circuit denied Singh’s earlier petition for review.
Three years after his final removal order, Singh asked the BIA to reopen and terminate the proceedings. He asserted that his wife had received asylum in 2023, that her asylee-relative petition on his behalf had been approved, and that he had obtained derivative asylee status. DHS did not respond to the motion. The BIA denied it as untimely and declined to reopen the case sua sponte.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Circuit held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion by enforcing the 90-day deadline for motions to reopen. Singh’s derivative asylee status was a change in his personal circumstances arising in the United States, not a change in conditions in India. It therefore did not qualify for the changed-country-conditions exception to the filing deadline, and Singh identified no other applicable exception.
The court also held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to exercise its sua sponte reopening authority. Accordingly, it denied the petition to the extent Singh challenged the untimeliness ruling and dismissed the petition to the extent he challenged the refusal to reopen sua sponte.
Key Takeaways
- Derivative asylee status obtained after a final removal order is a change in personal circumstances, not changed country conditions that excuse an untimely motion to reopen.
- The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh’s motion filed three years after the final removal order.
- Under Sixth Circuit precedent, courts lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary refusal to reopen removal proceedings sua sponte.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that favorable immigration developments occurring after a final removal order do not, by themselves, extend the statutory deadline for reopening proceedings. A noncitizen relying on the changed-country-conditions exception must identify a material change in the country of nationality or removal, rather than only a change in personal or family circumstances in the United States.
It also confirms the limited scope of judicial review when the BIA declines sua sponte reopening. Although DHS did not respond to Singh’s motion, the court did not treat that silence as agreement with his request or as a basis for jurisdiction.