Clarifying the Evidentiary Burden for Asserting Lawful Permanent Resident Status in Removal Proceedings – Commentary on Dynza Mackey v. Attorney General of the United States (3d Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s non-precedential decision in Dynza Mackey v. Attorney General addresses a recurring problem in immigration litigation: what documentation and proof are sufficient for a non-citizen to establish that he or she has already adjusted to lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) status and is therefore not removable for overstaying a visa.

Petitioner Dynza Mackey, a Bahamian citizen who arrived in 1978, insisted he became an LPR decades earlier. He relied principally on partially completed government forms and his own recollection of an alleged verbal assurance from an immigration officer. After the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) rejected his claim and ordered removal, Mackey sought review in the Third Circuit.

The central legal issues before the Court were:

• (i) whether substantial evidence supported the agency’s finding that Mackey had never been granted LPR status;
• (ii) whether equitable estoppel could bar the government from contesting his purported LPR status; and
• (iii) whether any procedural or due-process errors infected the removal proceedings.

2. Summary of the Judgment

In a per curiam opinion, the Third Circuit denied Mackey’s petition for review. Applying the “substantial evidence” standard, the Court held that:

• The documentary record—including express 1990 denial letters—amply supported the BIA’s conclusion that Mackey’s 1980s adjustment-of-status application had never been approved.
• The incomplete Forms I-181 introduced by Mackey, lacking signatures, dates, or official stamps, did not establish LPR status.
• Mackey’s equitable-estoppel theory failed because he could not prove any affirmative misconduct, misrepresentation, or reasonable reliance.
• Challenges to voluntary departure, continuances, bond, or I-360 (VAWA) denial were either not preserved, belonged in separate forums, or were outside the Court’s jurisdiction.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Thayalan v. Att’y Gen., 997 F.3d 132 (3d Cir. 2021) – Reinforces that the Court reviews IJ and BIA decisions together when the BIA both adopts and supplements the IJ’s reasoning. Here, that framework permitted holistic review.
• Manuel-Soto v. Att’y Gen., 121 F.4th 468 (3d Cir. 2024) – Confirms that legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, shaping the Court’s independent evaluation of estoppel and due-process arguments.
• Lin-Zheng v. Att’y Gen., 557 F.3d 147 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc) – Articulates the substantial-evidence test: findings are upheld unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled” to reach the opposite conclusion. This was the decisive lens for the LPR-status question.
• Lall v. DHS, 117 F.4th 87 (3d Cir. 2024) – Sets out the four-part test for equitable estoppel (misrepresentation, reasonable reliance, detriment, and affirmative misconduct). The Court found Mackey could not satisfy any prong.
• In re Wettach, 811 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2016) & Barna v. Panther Valley Sch. Dist., 877 F.3d 136 (3d Cir. 2017) – Provide the rule that arguments omitted from an opening brief are forfeited and cannot be revived in a reply brief.
• Delgado-Sobalvarro v. Att’y Gen., 625 F.3d 782 (3d Cir. 2010) – Clarifies that procedural-due-process claims require a showing of prejudice; cited to dismiss Mackey’s undeveloped constitutional allegations.

3.2 Legal Reasoning of the Court

1. Burden of Proof & Evidentiary Assessment
Under Immigration & Nationality Act (“INA”) § 240(c)(2)(A), once removability is established, the non-citizen bears the burden of proving that he is “lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” The Court emphasised that partially completed forms, absent agency authentication, are inadequate. The existence of denial letters in the record, coupled with the absence of any green card or approval notice, was dispositive evidence against Mackey.

2. Equitable Estoppel Against the Government
Even if an immigration officer’s verbal assurance had been made, a petitioner must show affirmative misconduct, not mere negligence or bureaucratic delay. The Court held that (a) no misrepresentation was proven, (b) Mackey could not reasonably rely on an oral statement in the face of explicit written notices to return for follow-ups, and (c) his own 1989 letter demonstrated he knew his case was unresolved.

3. Jurisdictional & Procedural Bars
• Claims regarding the Form I-360 (VAWA self-petition) belong before USCIS’s Administrative Appeals Office, not the BIA, therefore not reviewable here.
• Bond and detention matters must be raised in a separate bond hearing or a district-court habeas petition (8 C.F.R. § 1003.19).
• Issues forfeited in briefing were declined per Wettach and Barna.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Decision

• Evidentiary Clarity – Although labelled “not precedential,” the decision offers persuasive guidance: an applicant asserting historic LPR status must present formal, finalized, and authenticated documents (e.g., stamped I-181, green card, approval notice).
• Estoppel Standard Reaffirmed – The Court reiterates that equitable estoppel against the federal government remains exceptional; unsupported claims of agency misstatements are insufficient.
• Procedural Discipline – The opinion underscores that:
  • distinct immigration benefits (I-360, bond) travel through distinct procedural channels; and
  • arguments not timely raised are lost. Future litigants and counsel must structure their pleadings accordingly.
• Resource Allocation in Immigration Courts – By refusing to remand on insubstantial evidence, the Court signals that limited judicial resources will not be expended re-litigating factual disputes resolved through existing records.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR) – Commonly called a “green-card holder,” an individual legally admitted to reside and work permanently in the United States.
• Notice to Appear (NTA) – The charging document that initiates removal (deportation) proceedings, alleging grounds of removability.
• Form I-181 – “Memorandum of Creation of Record of Lawful Permanent Residence.” Must be signed/date-stamped by DHS to signal approval. Draft or unsigned copies have no legal force.
• Form I-130 – Petition by a U.S. citizen or LPR for certain relatives to obtain immigration benefits; its approval alone does not grant LPR status.
• Form I-360 (VAWA Self-Petition) – Allows abused spouses/children/parents of U.S. citizens or LPRs to seek immigrant classification without the abuser’s participation. Appeals go to USCIS, not EOIR.
• Substantial Evidence Standard – Highly deferential review: the court will uphold agency findings unless no reasonable fact-finder could reach the same conclusion.
• Equitable Estoppel – A doctrine preventing a party from asserting something contrary to what was implied by previous action or statement, but against the federal government it requires proof of affirmative misconduct.
• Per Curiam / Not Precedential – An unsigned decision representing the panel, not the entire Circuit; under 3d Cir. Internal Operating Procedures it lacks precedential effect but may be cited for persuasive value.

5. Conclusion

Dynza Mackey offers a concise yet instructive reaffirmation of core immigration-law principles. Petitioners carry the evidentiary burden to prove LPR status, and partial or informal documents will not suffice where formal denial notices exist. Equitable estoppel remains an extraordinary remedy requiring clear evidence of government misconduct. Additionally, the opinion serves as a procedural roadmap, stressing the importance of raising all issues in the correct forum and in a timely manner. Although non-precedential, the Third Circuit’s reasoning will likely guide immigration judges, advocates, and petitioners confronting similar factual disputes about historical adjustment-of-status claims.