## Facts

- Dennis Medina-Morales, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States in 1986 without admission or parole.
- In 1992, his mother married a U.S. citizen, creating a potential step-relationship basis for immigration benefits.
- In 1993, Medina-Morales traveled to Honduras to seek an immigrant visa; after refusal, he returned to the United States.
- In 1998, immigration authorities initiated removal proceedings by serving a Notice to Appear alleging removability.
- Medina-Morales initially pursued adjustment of status based on his U.S. citizen stepfather but later abandoned that request before the Immigration Judge and accepted voluntary departure.
- Afterward, he moved to reopen removal proceedings to renew the adjustment-of-status request under 8 U.S.C. § 1255.

## Issues

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) barred judicial review of the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen where the petitioner alleged the BIA acted contrary to law and its own precedent.
2. Whether the BIA abused its discretion or acted unlawfully by (a) treating the prior voluntary departure agreement as a factor against reopening and (b) assessing the “strength” of the petitioner’s step-relationship in denying reopening.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held it had jurisdiction because § 1252(a)(2)(B) does not preclude review of BIA decisions alleged to be contrary to law, including failure to follow agency precedent.
- The court affirmed that the BIA could weigh Medina-Morales’s prior voluntary departure agreement against reopening and found no abuse of discretion on that point.
- The court held the BIA acted contrary to its own precedent by considering the “strength” of the step-relationship as a basis to deny reopening.
- The court granted the petition for review in relevant part and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Section 1252(a)(2)(B) limits review of specified discretionary immigration decisions but does not bar review of legal questions, including claims that the BIA acted contrary to law.
- Courts may review whether the BIA complied with its own precedents when deciding motions to reopen.
- The BIA must follow its precedent or provide a reasoned explanation for departing from it; reliance on an impermissible factor identified by precedent constitutes legal error.
- A prior agreement to voluntary departure may be considered as a discretionary factor weighing against reopening and does not, by itself, establish an abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit retained authority to review the reopening denial for legal error, upheld the BIA’s consideration of the prior voluntary departure agreement, and remanded because the BIA unlawfully relied on the perceived weakness of the petitioner’s step-relationship in violation of its own precedent.


Medina-Morales v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 520 (9th Cir. 2004)