The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Shao Yu Chen in a decision denying her petition to reopen her immigration proceedings. This ruling affects Chen, a citizen of China, who has been fighting against her removal from the United States. The court's decision is significant as it upholds the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of her motion to reopen, which could have allowed her to remain in the country.
Chen's case revolves around her attempt to challenge a 2013 removal order based on new legal precedents. The Ninth Circuit's ruling, filed on November 10, 2026, emphasizes the strict deadlines and requirements for reopening immigration cases, particularly when it comes to demonstrating hardship. The court's decision highlights the challenges faced by individuals seeking to navigate the complexities of U.S. immigration law.
The parties involved in this case are Shao Yu Chen, the petitioner, and Todd Blanche, the Attorney General representing the government. Chen originally faced removal proceedings in 2013, where she was denied cancellation of removal due to not meeting the statutory requirements, including ten years of continuous presence in the U.S. After her case concluded, she sought to reopen it in 2021, citing a change in legal standards stemming from the Supreme Court's decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland.
The Supreme Court's ruling clarified that a notice to appear (NTA) must contain all necessary information regarding a removal hearing in a single document to trigger the “stop-time” rule, which is crucial for calculating continuous physical presence. Chen argued that because she was not served a sufficient NTA, she had not triggered this rule and had therefore accrued over ten years of physical presence in the U.S.
However, the BIA deemed the conclusion of Chen's removal proceedings in 2013 as the endpoint for evaluating her continuous physical presence. The court noted that even if there were legal errors in the BIA's reasoning, Chen failed to establish a prima facie case for reopening her case. The court stated, “the BIA properly concluded that Chen failed to make the requisite prima facie showing to warrant a motion to reopen.”
According to the court, to qualify for cancellation of removal, Chen needed to demonstrate that her removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative. The BIA found that Chen's evidence, which included her spouse and children in the U.S., did not meet this high threshold. The court affirmed that substantial evidence supported the BIA's hardship determination, stating that the evidence Chen presented did not deviate from the norm required to establish exceptional hardship.
Additionally, Chen challenged the BIA’s refusal to reopen her case on its own initiative, known as sua sponte reopening. The BIA has discretion to reopen cases but does so only in truly exceptional circumstances. The Ninth Circuit ruled that absent any legal or constitutional errors pointed out by Chen, they lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision on this matter. The court concluded, “we dismiss this aspect of Chen’s petition for lack of jurisdiction.”
This ruling has significant implications for Chen and others in similar situations. It reinforces the importance of adhering to strict deadlines and requirements in immigration proceedings. The decision serves as a reminder that changes in law do not automatically grant individuals the ability to reopen their cases without meeting specific criteria.
Going forward, this ruling may deter others from attempting to reopen their immigration cases without clear evidence of hardship or a strong legal basis. It underscores the challenges many face in the immigration system, particularly those who have been in the U.S. for extended periods but lack the necessary legal documentation.
Chen's options moving forward are limited. The court's ruling can potentially be appealed, but the likelihood of success may be low given the court's clear stance on the requirements for reopening immigration cases. There are no related cases pending that would directly impact Chen's situation, but her case may resonate with others facing similar challenges in the immigration system.
