Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Mata: Courts Retain Jurisdiction Over Statutory Motions to Reopen

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published May 4, 2026

Mata v. Lynch prevents a court from recharacterizing a statutory equitable-tolling request as an unreviewable request for sua sponte reopening and then dismissing for lack of jurisdiction.

The motion alleged ineffective assistance

After counsel failed to file an appellate brief and the BIA dismissed the appeal, Reyes Mata sought reopening through new counsel. He acknowledged the ninety-day limit and argued that ineffective assistance justified equitable tolling.

The Board denied both forms of reopening

The BIA rejected the statutory motion as untimely and separately declined to use its regulatory sua sponte authority. The Fifth Circuit recast the request as only the latter and dismissed because it considered sua sponte decisions unreviewable.

Jurisdiction followed the statutory motion

A court of appeals has jurisdiction to review the BIA's disposition of a noncitizen's statutory motion to reopen. Untimeliness, an equitable-tolling argument, or the presence of a separate sua sponte request does not eliminate that jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction and merits are different

The Court reversed and remanded without deciding whether Mata deserved equitable tolling. A weak or legally unavailable claim is resolved on the merits; it does not justify refusing jurisdiction the court possesses.

Key takeaways

• Identify the statutory and sua sponte requests separately.
• Preserve the factual record supporting diligence and extraordinary circumstances.
• Do not confuse a merits defect with appellate jurisdiction.
• File the petition for review within its independent statutory deadline.