Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Mata: Courts Retain Jurisdiction When the BIA Denies an Untimely Motion to Reopen

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published September 8, 2026

Reyes Mata v. Lynch addressed appellate jurisdiction after the BIA rejected an untimely motion to reopen alleging prior counsel’s ineffective assistance and declined separate sua sponte reopening.

The prior appeal failed after counsel filed no brief

Mata’s first attorney filed a notice of appeal from a removal order but did not submit a brief, and the BIA dismissed the appeal. New counsel later sought reopening.

The statutory motion requested equitable tolling

Mata acknowledged the ninety-day deadline had passed and argued that ineffective assistance was an extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling. The BIA rejected the motion as untimely and also declined sua sponte reopening.

The Fifth Circuit recharacterized the request

The court treated Mata’s equitable-tolling argument as only a request for unreviewable sua sponte action and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction remained over the statutory motion

The Supreme Court held that timeliness and equitable-tolling issues go to the disposition of a statutory motion, not the court’s power to review it. The Court reversed and remanded without deciding the tolling merits.

Key takeaways

• Separate a statutory motion to reopen from a request for sua sponte reopening.
• Document the missed deadline, alleged extraordinary circumstance, and diligence.
• Preserve ineffective-assistance compliance and supporting evidence.
• Distinguish appellate jurisdiction from whether equitable tolling succeeds on the merits.