• Practice Advisory on Filing Post-Departure Motions to Reopen or Reconsider: Click here to download.

• Circuit court cases addressing the post-departure bar on motions to reopen decided after the practice advisory was published.

• The Tenth Circuit upheld the post-departure bar and affirmed the BIA decision finding that it lacked jurisdiction over a timely motion to reopen filed after respondent had been removed.  The Court ruled that the holding of Union Pacific Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 130 S. Ct. 584 (2009), that an agency cannot limit its own jurisdiction through regulation, did not overturn its previous rulings on the validity of the post-departure bar.  Contreras-Bocanegra v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2010).
• The Sixth Circuit held that immigration courts and the BIA are required to consider post-departure motions to reopen.  The Court noted that the statute granting the right to file motions to reopen and reconsider does not place any limitations on motions filed by individuals who have left the country, and citing Union Pacific Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 130 S. Ct. 584 (2009), concluded that the regulation could not be interpreted to limit jurisdiction over post-departure motions.  Pruidze v. Holder, 632 F.3d at 234 (6th Cir. 2011).
• The Second Circuit held that the statutory motion to reopen process provided the petitioners with an adequate and effective substitute to habeas review because it could not unilaterally be terminated by the Government.  In thus holding, the Second Circuit found that the post-departure regulation does not strip the BIA of jurisdiction to review post-departure motions to reopen.  Luna v. Holder, No. 08-4840, (2nd Cir., March 3, 2011).
• The Ninth Circuit followed its prior decision in Coyt v. Holder, 593 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2010) and found the post-departure regulation invalid as in conflict with the statutory right to file a motion to reopen.  The court held that physical removal does not preclude a motion to reopen.  The case involved an individual who filed a timely motion to reopen after successfully vacating his conviction only weeks after his deportation.  Reyes-Torres v. Holder, No. 08-74452, No. 09-70214 (9th Cir., April 7, 2011).

• Practice Advisory on Non-Immigrant Waivers: Click here to download.

• Pro Bono Panel

The Post Deportation Human Rights Project welcomes all attorneys who would like assistance with a post-deportation case or more general information on post-deportation law to contact us.  In addition to legal advice and information, the PDHRP may be available to mentor attorneys working on post-deportation issues.

We also ask for your assistance in representing individuals who have been removed and hope that you will be a partner in developing the field of post-deportation law. If you are an attorney interested in learning more about post-deportation law and representing a post-deportation client pro bono or if you are an attorney with previous experience in representing post-deportation clients and would be willing to share your expertise with us, please consider becoming a member of the PDHRP Pro Bono Panel, and complete the following form.  A PDHRP attorney will follow up with you.

Click here to fill out our Pro Bono Panel form.

You may also contact us directly.