Case Explained: Rustico Lacsina v. Todd Blanche,1 Acting Attorney General of the United States

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-06 The eighth-circuit granted the petition for review regarding the denial of Rustico Lacsina’s statutory motion to reopen removal proceedings, denied the petition regarding the denial of his motion for sua sponte reopening, and remanded the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) for further proceedings. The court held that the BIA abused its discretion by denying the statutory motion to reopen based on the “departure bar” regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d), which prohibits aliens who have departed the United States from filing such motions. The court’s decision rests on the interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7), which grants an alien the right to file one motion to reopen proceedings. The court reasoned that the statutory text imposes specific numeric, evidentiary, and timing limitations but contains no geographic restriction requiring the alien to remain in the United States at the time of filing. While Congress explicitly required physical presence for domestic violence victims seeking out-of-time motions, the omission of such a requirement for general motions indicated a clear congressional intent not to impose a departure bar. Consequently, the court found that the regulation conflicts with the statute and lacks authority, noting that all other circuit courts to address this issue have reached the same conclusion. The court further rejected the BIA’s claim that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion due to the alien’s removal, stating that Congress alone controls the BIA’s jurisdiction under the statute and did not include such a limitation. Regarding the request for sua sponte reopening under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), the court denied review because this specific agency decision is committed to agency discretion by law and is therefore unreviewable by the court. On remand, the BIA must reconsider Lacsina’s motion to reopen based on the vacatur of his California convictions without applying the invalid departure bar regulation. The court explicitly stated that its ruling is limited to the procedural validity of the departure bar and does not address the substantive merits of Lacsina’s claim for relief from removal. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.