Lopez-Reyes v. Gonzales, No. 06-2505, holds that a Guatemalan asylum petitioner did not have he due process “rights” violated because the immigration judge refused to “close or stayed until her father's pending application for asylum was adjudicated, so that she could claim derivative asylum benefits.” But, “ The IJ adhered to law that an administrative closure may not be granted if it is opposed by either party to the proceedings.” Moreover, the First points out that administrative closure is not a final order, so the only way she could get it reviewed was by withdrawing her claims, and getting a removal order.
But, the First does a little more. The government argues that it has the absolute discretion to not consent to an administrative closure. Citing Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 482 (1999), the First explains that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), the First comments that the failure to consent to such an action might be reviewable.
Alas, she didn’t make the argument to the BIA, so the First rejects this on a failure to exhaust.