Case Explained: 26a0182p.06

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-25 The Sixth Circuit dismissed Sam Morris’s first petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order affirming the denial of his cancellation of removal and denied his second petition challenging the BIA’s denial of motions to reconsider, reopen, and dismiss. Regarding the first petition, the court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of discretionary relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) pursuant to the jurisdictional bar in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). Additionally, the court dismissed Morris’s challenge to his removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C) because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies by failing to raise the argument before the Immigration Judge or the BIA prior to filing the petition. Regarding the second petition, the court affirmed the BIA’s denial of Morris’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because Morris failed to comply with the procedural requirements established in *Matter of Lozada*. Specifically, the court found that photocopies of letters and complaint forms without proof of mailing or affidavits attesting to actual filing did not constitute sufficient evidence that former counsel was informed of the allegations or that disciplinary charges were filed. Finally, the court denied review of the BIA’s denial of the government’s motion to reopen and dismiss, holding that the Board acted within its discretion under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) and § 1239.2(c). The court found no abuse of discretion because the government failed to provide new facts or explain changed circumstances necessary to justify reopening, particularly given Morris’s extensive criminal history indicating he is a danger to the public. As a result, the removal order against Morris remains in effect. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.