Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, a Chinese citizen petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his motion to reopen a deportation order from 1995. The petitioner argued that the BIA should have equitably tolled the 90-day filing deadline for reopening motions due to ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the BIA found the motion untimely, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate the requisite due diligence, offering vague and contradictory reasons for delays in pursuing his case. Despite filing motions in 2004 and 2007, the petitioner did not maintain adequate contact with his attorneys, further undermining his claim. Additionally, the petitioner contended that the BIA erred in not considering his adjustment of status, a claim dismissed due to non-compliance with the timeliness requirement of Matter of Velarde-Pacheco. The court upheld the BIA's decision, finding no abuse of discretion, and denied the petition for review and a motion for oral argument, affirming the BIA's denial of the motion to reopen.
Legal Issues Addressed
Adjustment of Status and Timeliness Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Wang's argument related to adjustment of status was dismissed because he failed to meet the timeliness requirement as established in Matter of Velarde-Pacheco.
Reasoning: Wang's argument that the BIA violated its precedent by not addressing his adjustment of status was dismissed, as he did not meet the timeliness requirement established in Matter of Velarde-Pacheco.
Equitable Tolling and Due Diligencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The BIA found that Wang's motion was untimely and his explanations for delays were insufficient, showing a lack of due diligence, thereby not warranting equitable tolling.
Reasoning: Wang's motion was found to be untimely, and the BIA did not abuse its discretion in refusing to toll the time limit. Wang's explanations for delays since his 1995 deportation order, including his 2004 and 2007 motions to reopen, were deemed vague and contradictory, indicating a lack of diligence.
Motions to Reopen under 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(2)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the final decision, unless the deadline is equitably tolled due to ineffective assistance of counsel, with a requirement to show due diligence.
Reasoning: Under 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(c)(2), a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the final decision, but this deadline can be equitably tolled for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, provided the petitioner shows due diligence.