Immigration · Primary-source case analysis

Mata: A Court of Appeals Has Jurisdiction to Review an Untimely Motion to Reopen

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published May 13, 2026 · Updated October 18, 2026

Decision: Mata v. Lynch, 576 U.S. 143 (2015).

Reyes Mata v. Lynch rejected a categorical rule that relabeled an untimely statutory motion as a request for the Board to act on its own initiative. A separate dissent also objected to that categorical rule, but would have required closer attention to whether Mata’s actual filing was ambiguous. The disagreement offers a concrete drafting lesson: Identify the authority invoked and the relief requested instead of leaving the court to infer them. Mata, 576 U.S. at 149–154.

The motion invoked a statutory reopening right

After counsel filed a notice of appeal but no promised brief, the Board dismissed Mata’s appeal. New counsel filed the reopening motion more than 100 days later and argued that ineffective assistance excused the late filing. The Board rejected tolling for lack of prejudice, not a finding that counsel had missed the immigration hearing. Mata, 576 U.S. at 145–146.

The BIA denied the motion as untimely

The Board separately declined to act on its own initiative. The Fifth Circuit then applied its categorical practice of treating ineffective-assistance tolling requests as invitations for that separate authority. The majority held that this relabeling could not erase review of the statutory motion. Mata, 576 U.S. at 146–149.

Merits weakness did not eliminate jurisdiction

Justice Thomas distinguished interpreting an ambiguous filing from changing an unambiguous procedural request. He noted that Mata’s motion did not expressly identify which reopening authority it invoked, and would have vacated and remanded for consideration without the categorical rule. That was the dissent’s approach, not an additional majority requirement. Mata, 576 U.S. at 151–154 (Thomas, J., dissenting).

The case returned for appellate review

The majority reversed and remanded; it did not award tolling or order reopening. Its reasoning also distinguished a generous reading that identifies a possible route to relief from a recharacterization that makes relief impossible. Mata, 576 U.S. at 150–151. A clear motion should distinguish the statutory reopening request, the reason offered to excuse lateness and any alternative request for the Board to act on its own initiative.

Key takeaways

• Name the statutory reopening authority and any separate alternative request explicitly.
• Explain the missed deadline and the record supporting the asserted excuse; a label alone is not proof.
• Distinguish the majority holding from the dissent’s concern about ambiguous filings.
• Identify the actual Board ruling challenged rather than inviting categorical relabeling.