"Under our reading, the statute is facially unambiguous. Because the statute is facially unambiguous, we adhere to its plain meaning. ... Giving the statute its plain meaning, we conclude that an alien’s ability to exercise his statutory right to file a motion to reconsider is not contingent upon his presence in the United States. The departure regulation therefore cannot serve as a basis for denying aliens who have departed the United States their statutorily authorized right to file one motion to reconsider."
- Lari v. Holder, Sept. 27, 2012. [Hats off to Matthew L. Hoppock, Beth Werlin and Trina Realmuto!]
"Going no further than Chevron’s first step, we conclude that Section 1229a(c)(7) unambiguously gives aliens a right to file a motion to reopen regardless of whether they have left the United States. ... [W]e hold that the Board’s application of the departure regulation to statutory motions to reopen is invalid under Chevron’s first step as the statute plainly does not impose a general physical presence requirement."
- Garcia Carias v. Holder, Sept. 27, 2012. [Hats off to Jessica Ellen Chicco (Post- Deportation Human Rights Project, Boston College,) Ronaldo Rauseo-Ricupero, Maia Harris and Danielle Mairin McLaughlin!]