Page:Reyes Mata v. Lynch.pdf/2

144

doomed request as one for relief that may be available. But even if equitable tolling is prohibited, the Fifth Circuit's action was not justified. If Mata is not entitled to relief on the merits, then the correct disposition is to take jurisdiction and affirm the BIA's denial of his motion. For a court retains jurisdiction even if a litigant's request for relief lacks merit, see Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 89, and a federal court has a “virtually unflagging obligation,” Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800, 817, to assert jurisdiction where it has that authority. Nor can the established practice of recharacterizing pleadings so as to offer the possibility of relief justify an approach that, as here, renders relief impossible and sidesteps the judicial obligation to assert jurisdiction. Pp. 147–151.

558 Fed. Appx. 366, reversed and remanded.

, delivered the opinion of the Court, in which, and , , , , , and , joined. , filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 151.

Mark C. Fleming argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Raed Gonzalez, Naimeh Salem, Bruce Godzina, Sydenham B. Alexander III, Jason D. Hirsch, Brian K. Bates, and Alexander I. Afanassiev.

Anthony A. Yang argued the cause for respondent. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Verrilli, Acting Assistant Attorney General Branda, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Donald E. Keener, and Patrick J. Glen.

William R. Peterson, by invitation of the Court, 574 U. S. 1118, argued the cause and filed a brief as amicus curiae in support of the judgment below. With him on the brief was Charles R. Flores.

  delivered the opinion of the Court.

An alien ordered to leave the country has a statutory right to file a motion to reopen his removal proceedings. See 8 U. S. C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A). If immigration offcials deny that