HERRERA-NUNEZ

page
695
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 695 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4205
Matter of Felipe De Jesus HERRERA-NUNEZ, Respondent
Decided June 12, 2026
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
The respondent did not establish an exceptional situation warranting sua sponte
reopening of removal proceedings where his equities were acquired years after he was
ordered removed from the United States.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Isadora Velazquez-Rivas, Esquire, Miami, Florida
BEFORE: Board Panel: MALPHRUS, Chief Appellate Immigration Judge; CHABAN,
Appellate Immigration Judge; WHITE, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge.
MALPHRUS, Chief Appellate Immigration Judge:
The respondent, who is a native and citizen of Mexico, has filed an
untimely 	motion 	to 	reopen 	removal 	proceedings 	that 	became
administratively final on October 5, 2015. See section 240(c)(7)(C)(i) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i)
(2024); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2026). The respondent also requests a stay
of removal during the pendency of his motion to reopen. 	The motion to
reopen will be denied, and the stay request will be denied as moot.
The respondent has filed a motion requesting the Board to exercise its
authority to sua sponte reopen proceedings for him to apply for adjustment
of status based on his 2019 marriage to his United States citizen spouse.1
The 	visa 	petition 	is 	pending 	with 	the 	United 	States 	Citizenship 	and
Immigration Services (“USCIS”).2 	The respondent also claims that his
1 	The phrase “sua sponte” is a Latin phrase meaning “[w]ithout prompting or suggestion;
on its own motion.” 	Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). 	The Board has the
discretionary authority to sua sponte reopen on our own motion any case in which we have
rendered a decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) (2026). “Sua sponte” does not refer to a right
of a party to seek reopening. Rather, a respondent only has the right to file one motion to
reopen within 90 days of the entry of an order, which is not applicable here. See INA
§ 240(c)(7), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
2 	The respondent’s motion also makes a passing reference to an approved visa petition
filed by his daughter. 	However, this appears to be an error, as the respondent has not

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 6 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4205
page
696
removal order has caused substantial hardship to his spouse and, if executed,
will result in manifest injustice and a violation of due process. In support of
the motion, the respondent has submitted a copy of a receipt notice for the
pending spousal visa petition, a copy of his and his spouse’s marriage
certificate, a copy of their 6-year-old United States citizen son’s birth
certificate, a declaration from and medical records pertaining to his spouse,
letters 	of 	support 	from 	friends 	and 	co-workers, 	and 	other 	supporting
documentation.
The Board’s authority to reopen proceedings sua sponte is limited to truly
exceptional situations. 	Matter of G-D-, 22 I&N Dec. 1132, 1133–34 (BIA
1999). This sua sponte authority “is not meant to be used as a general cure
for filing defects or to otherwise circumvent the regulations, where enforcing
them might result in hardship.” Matter of J-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 976, 984 (BIA
1997). Acquiring equities while remaining illegally in the United States after
being ordered removed generally does not constitute an exceptional situation.
Matter of H-Y-Z-, 28 I&N Dec. 156, 161 (BIA 2020). 	We reiterated this
recently in Matter of Yadav, 29 I&N Dec. 438, 439–40 (BIA 2026), where
we declined to sua sponte reopen removal proceedings completed in 2014
that 	the 	alien 	sought 	to 	reopen 	based 	on 	his 	2017 	marriage 	to 	his
United States citizen wife and USCIS’ 2020 approval of a visa on his behalf.
In the instant case, the respondent was ordered removed in 2015. He
married in 2019, and his visa petition was filed later that year. Thus, the
equities were acquired years after the respondent was ordered removed.
Moreover, the alien in Matter of Yadav had an approved visa petition,
whereas the respondent’s visa in this case remains pending. 	Also, the
respondent conceded removability and, in the absence of any indication that
his removal proceedings were unfair, we are unpersuaded by his generalized
assertion that his removal will result in manifest injustice or a deprivation of
due process. See, e.g., Vetcher v. Barr, 953 F.3d 361, 369–70 (5th Cir. 2020)
(explaining that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process in
removal proceedings and that due process in turn requires that the removal
proceedings be conducted with fundamental fairness). 	Accordingly, we
decline to exercise our discretionary authority to reopen these proceedings
sua sponte. 	Because we have adjudicated the motion to reopen, the
respondent’s request for a stay is moot.
ORDER: The motion to reopen is denied.
provided evidence that he has a daughter or that anyone other than his spouse has filed a
visa petition on his behalf.

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 6 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4205
page
697
FURTHER ORDER: 	The request for a stay of removal is denied as
moot.
NOTICE: 	If a respondent is subject to a final order of removal and
willfully fails or refuses to depart from the United States pursuant to the
order, to make timely application in good faith for travel or other documents
necessary to depart the United States, or to present himself or herself at the
time and place required for removal by the Department of Homeland
Security, or conspires to or takes any action designed to prevent or hamper
the respondent’s departure pursuant to the order of removal, the respondent
shall be subject to a civil monetary penalty of up to $998 for each day the
respondent is in violation. 	See INA § 274D, 8 U.S.C. § 1324d (2024);
8 C.F.R. § 280.53(b)(14) (2026). 	Further, any respondent that has been
denied admission to, removed from, or has departed the United States while
an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding and thereafter
enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in the United States shall be
fined or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. 	See INA § 276(a),
8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) (2024).