Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Doherty: The Attorney General Retains Broad Discretion Over Reopening

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published September 13, 2026

INS v. Doherty applies the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard to a motion seeking to revive asylum and withholding claims previously withdrawn in deportation proceedings.

The applicant deliberately withdrew protection claims

Doherty, convicted in absentia in Northern Ireland, withdrew asylum and withholding applications, conceded deportability, and designated Ireland for deportation. After the destination dispute continued, he moved to reopen based on a later Irish extradition law.

The claimed evidence was not sufficiently new

The Attorney General could conclude that the legal development did not materially change the evidence supporting the protection claims. Reopening rules require material evidence that was unavailable and could not have been presented earlier.

Prior waiver supplied an independent ground

Doherty had made a strategic choice to withdraw the claims. The Attorney General acted within his discretion in finding that he had not adequately explained that earlier abandonment and in refusing to reopen proceedings years later.

The Court restored the denial

The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and emphasized the broad discretion historically attached to reopening. Even a prima facie protection claim does not automatically compel reopening when independent procedural grounds support denial.

Key takeaways

• Show why each item of evidence is genuinely new and material.
• Explain any prior withdrawal or failure to pursue relief.
• Address discretionary reasons for reopening, not eligibility alone.
• Expect deferential review of a reasoned agency denial.