Lisboa v. Holder, 570 F. App’x 468 (6th Cir. 2014).

As noted above, a non-citizen seeking to reopen his removal proceeding has two avenues available to him. First, he may file a motion to reopen as a matter of right, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7) and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c). Such a “statutory” or “on motion” request for reopening must satisfy several threshold requirements, including its filing within 90-days of the final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). Alternatively, and regardless of how much time has passed since the final order of removal, a petitioner may ask the immigration judge or the Board “at any time [to] reopen or reconsider on its own motion any case in which it has rendered a decision.” 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(a) (granting power to Board), 1003.23(b)(1) (granting power to immigration judge). This procedure is known as sua sponte reopening and, for the large numbers of non-citizens unable to meet the statute’s 90-day time limit, it is their only avenue for relief.  See Rachel E. Rosenbloom, Remedies for the Wrongly Deported: Territoriality, Finality, and the Significance of Departure, 33 U. Haw. L. Rev. 139, 174 (2010).
Lisboa v. Holder, 570 F. App’x 468, 471-72 (6th Cir. 2014).