Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Abudu: Motions to Reopen Face Independent Thresholds

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published September 13, 2026

INS v. Abudu explains why reopening is disfavored and identifies distinct grounds on which the Board may deny a request to reopen removal proceedings.

The asylum claim came after the deportation hearing

Abudu, a Ghanaian national, declined to seek asylum during his hearing and was ordered deported. Years later he moved to reopen, citing fear of Ghana’s government and a visit from an acquaintance who had become a government official.

A motion must present new, material grounds

The Board may require a prima facie showing of eligibility and may reject evidence that is not material or was previously available. A motion is not a substitute for presenting an available claim in the original proceeding.

Failure to explain the earlier omission is independently important

The BIA may deny reopening when the applicant does not reasonably explain why the claim or evidence was not raised before. That inquiry protects finality and discourages strategic withholding while allowing genuinely changed facts to be considered.

Abuse-of-discretion review applied

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s more demanding review and emphasized the Board’s broad discretion over reopening. The decision did not make reopening impossible; it requires the motion to satisfy procedural thresholds with a developed evidentiary explanation.

Key takeaways

• State each reopening ground and its legal elements.
• Show that supporting evidence is material and previously unavailable.
• Explain specifically why the claim was not raised earlier.
• Address prima facie eligibility as well as procedural timeliness.