The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of Angel Danilo Trigueros Quizar in a significant immigration case, allowing him to reopen his removal proceedings. This decision affects not only Trigueros Quizar but also sets a precedent for similar cases involving late arrivals to immigration hearings. The ruling emphasizes the evidentiary burden on petitioners and the treatment of their claims in immigration court.
In the case, docket number 24-4847, Trigueros Quizar, a native of Guatemala, faced removal after he missed his immigration hearing due to a flat tire. The court's ruling, filed on September 4, 2026, comes after a lengthy legal battle that began when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) filed a Notice to Appear against him in 2022.
Initially, Trigueros Quizar was charged with removability but sought asylum and protection under the Convention Against Torture. However, on September 1, 2023, he failed to appear for his scheduled hearing, resulting in an in absentia removal order. He later filed a motion to reopen his case, claiming that a flat tire caused his tardiness.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his motion, stating that while a flat tire could be considered an exceptional circumstance, Trigueros Quizar did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims. The IJ noted that the receipt he submitted for new tires did not corroborate his story about the flat tire on the day of the hearing and that there were no records of phone calls he claimed were made to the court on his behalf.
Trigueros Quizar appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which upheld the IJ's decision, stating that he did not meet the burden of proof required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. This led to his petition for review by the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit's ruling highlighted two key errors made by the BIA. First, the court stated that the BIA incorrectly suggested that Trigueros Quizar was required to submit a separate affidavit under penalty of perjury detailing the events leading to his late arrival. The court clarified that pro se petitioners like Trigueros Quizar are not required to submit formal affidavits.
Second, the court ruled that the BIA erred by requiring corroborating evidence to support Trigueros Quizar's claims, which were not deemed inherently unbelievable. The court emphasized that motions to reopen are typically decided without a hearing, and the agency must accept a petitioner's affidavit as true unless the facts are clearly unbelievable.
The court ruled, "the agency erred by requiring that Trigueros Quizar provide documentary evidence to corroborate his statements, which were not 'inherently unbelievable.'"
The panel, led by Judge John B. Owens, granted Trigueros Quizar's petition for review and remanded the case back to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with their opinion. The ruling was not unanimous, as Judge Lawrence VanDyke dissented, arguing that the majority's decision extended the existing “deem-true” rule too far.
This ruling has significant implications for the future of immigration cases, particularly for individuals who miss their hearings due to circumstances beyond their control. It reinforces the idea that the burden of proof should not be excessively stringent for those seeking to reopen their cases, especially when their claims are plausible.
Going forward, this decision may encourage more individuals to file motions to reopen their cases, knowing that the courts will consider their circumstances more fairly. It also highlights the need for immigration judges and the BIA to adhere to established precedent regarding the evidentiary burden on petitioners.
As for next steps, it remains unclear whether the BIA will appeal this decision or if there are related cases pending that could further shape immigration law in the Ninth Circuit. The ruling sets a notable precedent that may influence how similar cases are handled in the future, potentially leading to more lenient standards for reopening cases based on exceptional circumstances.