February 23rd, 2010 
Max Nuyen Kucana v. Holder (U.S. Supreme Court 2010)
In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court settled a split among the appellate circuits as to whether a motion to reopen an asylum petition is reviewable by an appellate court. The Court determined that because there is no statutory basis which bars appellate courts from reviewing motions to reopen asylum petitions, such courts may fulfill their traditional functions of reviewing such claims.
The case arose because the respondent had filed an asylum claim that had been denied because of his failure to attend the hearing. Several years later, he filed a motion to reopen his asylum claim on account of the change in conditions in his home country. He claimed that he was entitled to a new hearing because the conditions in his country had gotten worse. He asserted that he had new evidence to support his asylum claim. The immigration judge denied his motion. The BIA also denied review. The respondent appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that it had been stripped of jurisdiction for review of asylum cases by the enactment of §1252(a)(2) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which amended the Immigration and Nationality Act, the primary statutory body relating to most immigration laws.