Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Mata: Courts Retain Jurisdiction Over Denials of Statutory Reopening

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published September 13, 2026

Mata v. Lynch separates review of a statutory motion to reopen from the Board’s distinct authority to reopen a case on its own motion.

The motion alleged ineffective assistance and lateness

After an in absentia removal order and dismissal of an administrative appeal, Mata asked the Board to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel. He acknowledged the ninety-day deadline but sought equitable tolling.

The Board denied the statutory motion

The BIA concluded that Mata had not shown the diligence required for equitable tolling and declined to reopen. It also chose not to exercise its separate sua sponte authority.

A court cannot relabel away its jurisdiction

The Fifth Circuit treated the filing as effectively seeking only sua sponte reopening and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that federal courts have jurisdiction to review final orders resolving statutory motions to reopen, including legal error in the Board’s equitable-tolling analysis.

The merits remained for the court of appeals

The Court reversed the jurisdictional dismissal without deciding whether tolling was warranted or whether the BIA abused its discretion. Sua sponte reopening remained a distinct issue. The case returned for ordinary review of the statutory motion actually filed.

Key takeaways

• Identify whether reopening is statutory, sua sponte, or both.
• Document the deadline and facts supporting equitable tolling.
• Preserve diligence evidence throughout the missed period.
• A review court must address its jurisdiction over the statutory motion as filed.