Attorney General’s Appointment Power Confirmed by Fourth Circuit
The Court’s Rationale
The central issue was whether a temporary BIA member had the authority to issue an order of removal against the petitioner, Salomon-Guillen. The petitioner argued that the BIA member’s appointment was invalid. He claimed the appointment had exceeded the 120-day limit in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(4).
The Fourth Circuit rejected this argument. It found that the Attorney General’s power to appoint temporary BIA members comes from 8 U.S.C. § 1103(g)(2)(A). This statute says the Attorney General “may delegate his authority” to Department of Justice employees. The court stated that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(4) gives the EOIR Director separate authority. This regulation is a distinct source of power, not a limit on the Attorney General’s statutory authority. Thus, the Director’s ability to appoint temporary BIA members is separate from the Attorney General’s authority.
The court further interpreted the EOIR Director’s regulatory authority as permitting renewable appointments. It found that a single, one-time appointment for a temporary BIA member would be inefficient. The regulation’s language also did not prohibit renewable appointments.
The Fourth Circuit confirmed the Attorney General has independent statutory authority to appoint and renew temporary members of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in the case of Salomon-Guillen v. Garland. This power is not limited by the regulation that gives the Director of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) similar authority. The court also ruled that the Director’s regulation allows for renewable appointments.
The Fourth Circuit — overview, jurisdiction, and why its decisions matter
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is a federal appellate court that reviews district-court decisions from its region. Its rulings create binding precedent for district courts within the circuit and persuasive authority elsewhere. Therefore, Fourth Circuit decisions often shape immigration litigation strategy, enforcement practice, and legal doctrines affecting clients across multiple states.
What the Fourth Circuit does (quick primer)
- Appellate review: reviews final district-court decisions for legal error, focusing on questions of law and significant procedural issues.
- Precedent-setting: published opinions are controlling in the circuit and can influence national law when compared with other circuits.
- Panel decisions: cases are usually decided by three-judge panels; en banc review is used rarely for major or conflicting issues.
Why its immigration rulings matter
- Regional impact: practitioners inside the Fourth Circuit must follow its precedents on asylum, removal procedures, and statutes.
- National influence: Fourth Circuit rulings contribute to circuit splits that may prompt Supreme Court review.
- Tactical consequences: the court’s decisions shape appeals strategy, stay requests, and preservation of issues for higher courts.
Practical implications for clients & practitioners
- Check jurisdiction: confirm whether your case falls within the Fourth Circuit’s geographic footprint—its precedent controls your district court.
- Follow recent opinions: update briefs and hearing strategies to reflect new Fourth Circuit holdings on key legal questions.
- Preserve issues for appeal: if a district court contradicts Fourth Circuit precedent, preserve appellate arguments and consider emergency relief options.
- Monitor circuit splits: coordinate multi-circuit strategy and appellate-stage options when conflicting rulings emerge.
How we help
We monitor Fourth Circuit opinions affecting immigration practice, analyze their impact on local strategy, draft appellate briefs and emergency stay petitions, and advise on en banc or Supreme Court review where appropriate. Request a case-summary template, an appellate-preservation checklist, or a short alert describing how a recent Fourth Circuit decision affects your files.