2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
10-27-2005 

# M ahmo o d v

. Atty Ge n U SA
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 03-3760

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" M ahmood v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 287. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/287P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 03- 3760
S YE D M AHMOOD,

Pet i t i oner
v.

* A L B E R T O R . G O N Z A L E S , A tto rn e yG e n e ra l

of the U nit ed S t at es,

R e sp o n d e n t *Su bs t i tut e d p ur s ua ntt o Rul e 43 c , F. R. A
. P.

O n A p p ea l from an O rde r en tered b ef o re T h e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( N o. A 70- 891- 107)

A r gued Sept ember15, 2004 B efor e: A L I T O , A M B R O and FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges2 ( Fi l ed O ct ober27, 2005 ) R obertFr ank, E s qui r e ( A r gued) Sui t e 1304 60 Par k Pl ace N ew ark, N J 07102 A t t orneyforPet i t i oner
Pet erD
. K ei s l er A s s i s t antA t t orneyG ener al , C i vi l D i vi s i on B a rryJ. P e tti n a to Seni orL i t i gat i on C ouns el D av id V
. B ern al, E sq u ir e D o u g las E
. G insb u rg, E sq u ir e Jo h n D
. W il li am s, E sq u ir e W i l l i am M
. M art i n, E s qui r e ( A r gued) U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on P. O
. B ox 878 B en Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D
. C
. 20044 A t t orney s forR es pondent

OPI NI ON O F THE COURTE f f e c tiv e M a rc h 1 , 2 0 0 3 , th e IN S c e a se d to e x ist a n d its 1 funct i ons w ere tr ans ferr ed t o the D epart m entof H om el and S e c u ri ty (“ D H S ” ). 3 A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge S y ed M ahmood pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the dec i s i on by th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) d ism iss in g h is appea l byagr eei ng w it h the Imm i gr at i on J udge’ s ( “I J ”) deni al of hi s m ot i on t o r eopen as unt i m el y fi l ed. T hough w e conc l ude that M ahmood’s al l egat i ons of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el provide a basi s fo r equ i t ablyt oll i ng the rel evan tfi l i ng dead l i nes, w e no nethel ess denythe p et i t i on be c ause he fai l ed to exerci se th e re q u is ite d e g re e o f

d ilig e n c e . I . Fa c t s a nd Pr o c e du r a l H i s t o r y M ahmood, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of B an g l ades h, ent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i n F eb ruary1993. I n J une 1997, the form er I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i z a t i o n Se rv i c e ( “I N S”) concl uded that 1 M ahmood had pr es ent ed i nval i d document s w hen he ent er ed the U n ited S tate s a n d iss u e d to h im a N o tice to A p p e a r f o r p o ss ib le r e mov a l
. M a h moo d , h o wev e r , f a i l e d t o a p p e a rf

o rh i s h e a r i ng befor e an I J i n J anuary 1998, and he w as or der ed r emoved in abs ent i a under8 U
. S. C
. § 1229a( b) ( 5) ( A )
. H e moved t o r eopen the pr ocee di ngs . A ft erdet erm i ni ng thatM ahmood had been s ever el yi l l and unabl e t o att end the hea r i ng, the IJ conc l udedT he l ett ers t at ed: 2 [M ah m o o d ] ap p ea red in f ron t of y o u fo r a pol i t i cal as y l um cas e. O n the dat e forthe 4 that“e x ce p ti o n al circu m stan ce s” w arran ted g rant i ng the mot i on. See 8 U
. S. C
. § 1229a( b) ( 5) ( C ) ( i ) ( pr ovi di ng thatan in a b se n tia r emoval or derm ay be r es ci nded “i f the al i en demonstr at es that t he fai l u r e t o a p p e a r was b e c a u s e o f e x c e p t i onal c ir c u m s ta n c e s ” ). T he I J s chedul ed anotherhear i n g in M ar ch 1999, but a g a in M a h m o o d d id n o t ap p e a r, an d a g a in th e IJ o rd e re d h is re m o v a l in a b se n tia
. In A p ril 1 9 9 9 , h e f iled a se c o n d m o tio n to r eopen, as s ert i ng a medi cal pr ocedur e had pr event ed hi m fr om appearing for the r es chedul ed hea r i ng. T he I J concl uded that the pr ocedur e ( r emoval of a pe r i rec tal abs ces s ) w as not s uffi ci ent l y s er i ous t o cons t i tut e exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s and deni ed th e mot i o n i n M a y1 9 9 9
. I n c l u d e d i n th e c e r t i fi ed admi ni s tr at i ve r ecor d i s a cover l ett er

— addr es s ed t o C har l es G rut m an, M ahmood’s couns el at th att i m e, and dat ed J une 1, 1 9 9 9

— p u rp o rt in g to a tta c h th e IJ ’s d e c is io n . W el l overa y earl at er , i n N ovember2000, G rut m an rec eive d a “ b ag an d b ag g ag e” let ter ord ering M ah m o o d to rep o rt forr emoval t o B angl ades h. I n r es pons e, G rut m an w r ot e t o the I J and as s erted t hathe had ne verbeen not i fi ed of the deni al of the mot i on t o r eopen. 2i ndi vi dual hear i ng, he fa i l ed t o appea r , and a m ot i on t o r eopen w as fi l ed on A pr i l 30, 1999. Y our offi ce s ent m y offi ce a l ett erdat ed 05/ 11/ 99, [gi vi ng] us t en day s t o m ake r epre s ent at i ons re la tiv e to th e m o tio n . A fter tha t l ett er, ne ith er m yc lie n t no r I hear d a n yth i n g f

r o m th e [ Uni t ed St at es D epa r t me n to f

J u s t i c e Ex e c u t i v e Off i c e f or Im m ig ra tio n R e v iew ], n o r fro m [ th e IN S ], u n til t oday , w hen he r ece i ved a ba g and bagga ge l ett er cal l i ng for hi s departur e on D ece m ber 20 , 2 0 0 0. I cal l ed the nat i onal hot l i ne and w as i nform ed that y ou had deni ed the m ot i on on M ay28, 1999, but w e neve rr ec ei ved the deni al
. A s w e neve r r ece i ved the deni al , i tw as notpos s i bl e t o appeal y ourdeci s i on. P lea se se n d m e a c o p yo f th e d e n ial.

5 I n D ecem b er 2000, M ahmood’s couns el appea l ed the M ay1999 or dert o the B I A , and i tdi s m i s s ed the appe al as u n tim e lyin 2 0 0 2 . M a h m o o d re tain e d n e w c o u n se l an d f iled h is thi r d m ot i on t o reope n i n J ul y2002, al l egi ng i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el and s eeki ng an adj us t m ent of s t atus i n l i ght of an a ppr oved I
- 130 pet i t i on fi l ed byK ar en M ahmood (né e Z i m m erm an) , w ho had mar r i ed M ahmood i n A pr i l 2 0 01. T he I J deni ed the m o ti o n on the gr ound thati thad bee n fi l ed over thr ee y ear s aft erthe I J i s s ued the in a b se n tia or der( thatw as the6 s ubj ectof the s econd m ot i on t o r eopen) , and thus l ong aft erthe appli ca b le t i m e l i m i t s form ovi ng t o r eopen ha d pas s ed. T he B IA d ism iss e d M a h m o o d ’s a p p e a l in Ju n e 2 0 0 1 , an d h e tim e ly p e titio n e d f

o r o u r C o u rt ’s re v ie w . I I . St andard of R evi ew W e re v iew a f

in a l o rd e r o f th e B IA d e n y in g a m o tio n to re o p e n f o r a b u s e o f

d is c re t i o n . C

f. IN S v . D o h e rty , 50 2 U. S. 31 4, 32 3 (199 2). R eview of the B IA ’s l egal c o n cl usi on s i s de novo , w i th appr opr i at e defer ence t o the agency ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of the under l y i ng s t atut e i n acc or dance w i th admi ni s tr at i ve l aw p ri n c ip le s . W

a n gv . A sh c ro

ft , 368 F. 3d 347, 349 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( ci t i ng C hevr on U

. S. A

. I nc. v. N at ur alR es . D ef

. C ounci l , I nc. , 467 U
. S. 837, 8 4 4 (1984) )
. Fi ndi ngs of fa ctm aynotbe d is tu rb e d if

s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n t i a l e v id e n c e . See 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 5 2 (b ) ( 4 ) ( B ) ; D ia v . A sh c ro ft , 3 5 3 F
. 3 d 2 2 8 , 2 4 7 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ) ( en banc ). I I I . D i s cus s i on A . E qui t abl e T o l l i ng and I nef f ect i venes s of C ounsel G ener al l y , a mot i on t o r eopen mustbe fi l ed w i thi n 90 day s of t he dat e of e ntryof a f i nal admi ni s tr at i ve or derofTh e 9 0

- d a yl i mi t a t i o n wa s c od i fi e d a t8 U. S
. C. 3 § 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 6 ) ( C) ( i ) p r i o rt o Co n g r e s s ’ s e n a c t me n to f th e RE AL I D A ctof 2005, Pub. L
. 109- 13, di v. B , § 101( d) , 119 St at
. 231, 304 ( 2005) , w hi ch r edes i gnat ed par agr aph ( c) ( 6) as par agr aph (c )( 7 ). B eca us e M ahmood w as m o v ing t o r eopen the

4 pr ocee di ngs t o s eek an adj us t m ent of s t atus , the B I A appl i ed the gener a l ru l e s o f

p a r a g r a p h ( c ) ( 7 ) a s wel l a s p a r a g r a ph ( b) ( 5) ( C ) ’ s part i cul arrul e fo r res ci ndi ng an or derof r emoval ent er ed in a b se n tia
. 7 r emoval
. 8 U
. S. C
. § 1229a( c) ( 7) ( C ) ( i )
. W it h res pectt o in 3 abs ent i a or der s of r emoval , an al i en has 180 day s to fi l e a m o ti on t o r eop en that seeks t o dem on strat e that the fai lu re to a p p e a rwa s b e c a u s e o f

“ e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u ms t a nc e s . ” 8 U. S
. C. § 1 2 2 9 a(b )(5)(C )(i ). T h e B IA co n clud ed that the M a h m o o d ’s m oti on w as unti m el yun der both dead l i nes. 4 W hen thi s pet i t i on for r evi ew w as fi l ed, court s of appe al w er e di vi ded overw hetherthe deadl i nes i n 8 U
. S. C
. § 1229a for m ovi ng t o r eopen in a b se n tia o rde rs of rem o v al w ere m an d atory a n d ju risd ictio n a l o r, li k e a sta tu te o f lim itatio n s, su b

jec t to e q u ita b le to llin g . C om

par e, e. g. , A ni n v. R eno , 188 F. 3d 1273, 1 2 7 8 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (h o ld in g th a t th e 1 8 0 -d a yd e a d lin e in f o r me r8 U. S. C. § 1 2 5 2 b ( c ) ( 3 ) ( A) f o rf i l i n g mot i o n s t o r e o pen d e p o r t a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s i s “ j u r i s d i c t i o n a l a n d m a n d a t o ry” ), w ith P er vai zv. G onz al es , 405 F. 3d 488, 490–91 ( 7th C i r . 2005) ( hol di n g th a tthe 180- days t atut orydeadl i ne form ot i on t o r eopenA m ot i on t o r eopen ba s ed on l ack of s uffi ci entnot i ce 5 m aybe fi l ed “a tanyt i m e. ” 8 U
. S. C
. § 1229a( b) ( 5) ( C ) ( i i )
. T he B I A found t hat the IJ ’ s deci s i on w as m ai l ed t o G rut m an on J une 1, 1999, and thatfi ndi ng i s s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al ev iden ce

— sp ec ifi ca ll y , the c o v er lett e r d e s cribe d ab o v e. In vi ew of t hi s fi ndi ng— and re gul at i ons and ca s el aw es t abl i s hi ng thats ervi ce on a n al i en’ s couns el i s equi val entt o s ervi ce on the al i en i n thes e ci r cumst ance s

— M ahmood cannotr el yon the “a t a n ytim e ” p ro v is io n in § 1 2 2 9 a (b )( 5 )( C )( ii)
. See Bej arv. A sh c ro ft , 3 2 4 F
. 3 d 1 2 7 , 1 3 1 ( 3 d Ci r . 20 03 ) ( c i t i n g 8 C. F
. R. § 2 9 2 .5 ). 8 i n abs ent i a pr ocee di ngs i s not j ur i s di ct i onal and r emandi ng for fur therpr ocee di ngs in l i ghtof couns el ’ s al l eged i neff ect i ve a s s is ta n c e ), I

a v o rs k iv . I

NS , 2 3 2 F
. 3 d 1 2 4 , 1 3 1 , 1 3 4 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 0 ) (ho lding that the 9 0 -da yp eriod p rov ided in f o rm er 8 C .F .R . § 3 .2 3 (b )(1 ) f

o r f ilin g m o tio n s to re o p e n is s u b jec t to e q u ita b le to llin g b a s e d o n in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l) , and Lop e zv . I

NS , 1 8 4 F. 3 d 1 0 9 7 , 1 0 9 9

– 1 1 0 0 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 99) ( hol di ng that the t i m e l i m i tform ot i on t o r eopen a n or derof deport at i on underform er8 U
. S. C
. § 1252b( c) ( 3) ( A ) i s s ubj ect to eq u it ab le t o ll ing ). 5 Subse quent l y , i n B org es v. G onz al es , 402 F. 3d 398 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), w e h e ld th a t th e § 1 2 2 9 a (b )(5 )(C )(i) d e a d lin e is “appr opr i at el ycons i der ed as anal ogous t o a s t a tu t e o f l i m i t at i ons and, thus , s ubj ect t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng. ” Id
. at406. I n r eac hi ng thi s hol di ng, w e ci t ed the “ol d chanc eryrul e” f ort ol l i ng on theD i s cus s i ng the “ol d chanc eryrul e” i n R euthe r ( w hi ch 6 B orges ci t es ) , w e “r ecogni z[e d] thatthe ca s e bef or e us [di d] not in v o lv e f ra u d ,” b u t co n c lu d e d n o n e th e les s, b a se d o n “ e q u itab le p ri n ciples,” tha t i t “p rese n t[ed ] a fa ctua l com p lex in w h ich th ere w a s ‘n o w a n t o f d ili g e n c e o r ca re ’” o n th e p a rt o f th e p a rty s eeki ng t o i nvoke the equi t abl e t ol l i ng doctr i ne. 575 F. 2d at 1 0 7 9 . W e h e ld th a t th e sta tu te o f lim itat io n s w a s s u b

jec t to to llin g . Id
. S p e c if ica lly , B o rg e s a lleg e d th a t h e w a s d e f ra u d e d in to 7 b eli ev ing that a l icen sed att o rne y w as do ing all o f h is l eg al w o rk (w h e n in ste a d w o rk w a s b e in g p e rf o rm e d b ya p a ra leg a l), h is ca se w as p roc e ed ing sm o o thly , an d if h e a p p ea red fo r a s c h e d u le d h e a r i n g h e w o u ld b e re m o v e d
. B or ges , 402 F. 3d at 405. A l though B orges o n ly d eal tdi r ect l yw i th the 180- day dead l i ne in § 12 29 a(b) (5) (C )(i ), w e beli eve it s r easoning als o a p p lies to th e 9 0 -d a yd e a d lin e in § 1 2 2 9 a (c )(7 ), as th e sta tu te is 9 g ro u n d o f

f ra u d
. Id .; s ee a lso L o p ez , 184 F. 3d at1100 (d isc u ss in g th e “ o ld c h a n c e ryru le” p ro v id in g th a t w h e re a p a rty
“ h a s b e e n in

ju re d b yf

ra u d a n d re m a in s in ig n o ra n c e o f it w i thoutanyfaul torw antof di l i gence orcar e on hi s part , the bar of t he st atut e does notbegi n t o run unt i l the fr aud i s di s cover ed” (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d )); R eutherv. Trs

. of Truc ki ng E m pl oyee s , 5 7 5 F
. 2 d 1 0 7 4 , 1 0 7 8

– 7 9 (3d C ir
. 1 9 7 8 ). 6 N ev erthe less, u n li k e the ali en i n B or ges , w ho al l eged that h e h ad b ee n d ef

rau d ed b yan a tto rn eyan d the a tt o rne y ’s para l egal , M ahmood al l eges thathi s att orneyfai l ed t o not i fy

7b e s t a n a lyze d a s a n in te g ra te d w h o le
. 10 hi m of t he IJ ’ s adver s e rul i ng. A tfi r s tgl ance , thes e al l egat i ons appea rt o be s i m i l ar to thos e ati s s ue i n B e ja r v . A sh c ro

ft , 324 F. 3d 127 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , w hi ch the G overnm entcont ends co n tr o ls th e o u tco m e h ere b yd o o m ing (i n the G o v ern m en t’ s vi ew ) c l a i ms f

o r t o l l i n g b a s e d o n i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e of couns el
. I n B ej ar , the ali en, w ho w as r emoved in a b se n tia , a lleg e d in e f

f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e b a se d o n h e r c o u n se l’s f a ilu re to not i fyherof the I J ’ s adver s e rul i ng, though B ej aradmi t t ed that s h e h a d m o v e d to a n o th e r r e s id e n c e . Id
. at129–31. W i thout deci di ng w hetheri neff

ect i ve as s i s t ance of counse l can s erve as a b as i s fort ol l i ng, w e conc l uded thatB ej ar ’ s couns el “di d not r enderas s i s t ance s uffi ci ent l yi neff ect i ve t o j us t i fyt ol l i ng” the a p p lic a b le d e a d lin e . Id

. a t 1 3 1 n .1
. A s an i ni t i al m att er and as al r eady not ed, other court s of appea l have r ecogni zed thati neff ect i ve as s i s t ance can s erve as a b a s is f o r e q u ita b le to llin g in im m ig ra tio n c a s e s . B ej ar , w hi ch w as deci ded pr e- B or

ges , does not s ugges t thatineffect i ve as s i s t ance i s nota pos s i bl e bas i s for t ol l i ng once one acc ept s , as w e musti n l i ghtof B or ges , tha t th e d e a d lin e s a r e s u b jec t to to llin g in a t le a s t s o m e c ir c u m s ta n c e s . F u rt h e r, B ej ari s di s t i ngui s habl e. U n l i ke M ahmood, B ej arcontr i but ed t o her l ack of not i ce bym ovi ng r es i dence s and fa il ing to p rov ide c o u n sel w ith h e r n e w a d d ress. M o reo v er, couns el ’ s r ece i ptof the not i ce w as undi s put ed i n B ej ar . H er e,B eca us e anydi s cus s i on of w hatG rut m an mayha v e d one 8 orfai l ed t o do w oul d be l ar gel y sp ecul at i ve, i n l i ghtof M ahmood’s l ack of

di l i gence w e do n otatt empt t o defi ne gener al l yw hatqual i fi es as i neff ect i venes s s uffi ci entt o j us t i fy to lli n g . J u d g e A lit o jo in s P a rt III.A o f th is o p in io n so lely beca us e B or

ges is b in d in g C irc u it p re c e d e n t.

11 G rut m an’ s l ett er( cl ai m i ng he r ece i ved no not ice) is i n t ens i on w ith th e B IA ’s f

in d in g th a t n o tice w a s s e n t. In th is c o n tex t, th e re a re a n u m b e r o f

p o ss ib le s c e n a rio s . F o r e x a m p le, it is pos s i bl e that G rut m an’ s fai l ur e t o forw ar d not i ce t o M ahmood w as th e re su lto f h is or h is st af f’s m ish a n d lin g o f th e lett er, perhap s throug h m e re i nad vert ence o r perhap s throug h g ross defici encies i n h is off

i ce’s adm i nis trat i ve p rocedu res . Ital so pos s i bl e, as M ahmood ass ert s , that G rut m an r ece i ved the not i ce, n e v e r f o rw a rd e d it t o h im , an d th e n m a d e m isre p re se n tatio n s to hi m and the C our tbycl ai m i ng he ( G rut m an) had neve rr ece i ved i t
. E ven w or s e, G rut m an mayhave a gr eed t o r epr es ent M a h m o o d (a n d a c c e p ted p a ym e n t) w ith o u t in ten d in g e v e r to re p re se n t h is c lien t ad e q u a tely. T h u s, th ro u g h n o f a u lt o f h is ow n ( i n hi s ver s i on of the ev ent s ) , M ahmood w as depr i ved of fur ther pr ocee di ngs i n thi s cas e. I n thi s cont ext , the al l egat i ons of i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance w oul d w arr ant fur thercons i der at i on by the B I A or I J ( w hi ch i s s ued thei r deci s i ons w el l befor e B or ges ), exce ptt hatfort he r eas ons di s cus s ed below h i s cl ai m s fai l for l ack of di l i gence . 812 B . D ue D i l i gence T h o u g h th e a tto rn e yc o n d u c t a t issu e is s u f f icie n t, i f s ubs t ant i ated , t o pr ovi de a ba s i s forequi t abl e t ol l i ng, M a h m o o d ’s c la im s s till f a il f o r l a c k o f d i l i g e n c e . C

f

. B orges, 402 F. 3d at 407 ( di s cus s i ng the G overnm ent ’ s ar gum entthatthe al i en w as inel i gi bl e forr el i ef be caus e he di d notexer ci s e due d ili g e n c e ); I

avors ki , 232 F.3d at134–35 ( hol di ng that in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f c o u n se l p ro v id e d a b a sis f o r e q u itab le t ol l i ng butconcl udi ng thatthe al i en’ s cl ai m w as t i m e- barr ed b e c a u se th e a lien h a d n o t e x e rc ise d d u e d ili g e n c e ); Lopez , 184 F. 3d at1100 ( adopt i ng “the ol d chanc eryrul e thatw her e a pl ai nt i ff ha s been i nj ur ed by fr aud and r emai ns i n i gnor ance of it w i tho ut any f

au l tor w an tof di l igen ce or care on his pa rt , the b a r o f th e sta tu te d o e s n o t b e g in to ru n u n ti l th e f ra u d is di s cover ed” ( empha s i s added) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks o m itted)). M ahmood has fa i l ed t o come for w ar d w i th evi dence that he ac t ed w i th s uch di l i gence . I ndeed, he fa i le d t o s ubm i tan a f f id a v it, in ste a d re stin g e n tirely o n G ru tm a n ’s le tter a s th e b a sis f o r to lli n g . H e re , th e I J ru led o n M a h m o o d ’s f irst m o tio n to r eopen— an d M ah m o o d rec eive d a c o p yo f th at rul i ng— l es s than 9 0 d ay s af

ter he fil ed that m o ti o n . Y et, if w e a cc ep t M ah m o o d ’s s ugges t i on thathe w as unaw ar e of the deni al of the s econd m ot i on unt i l D ece m ber2000, w hen he r ece i ved the “ba g and baggage” l ett er , ther e i s no i ndi cat i on i n the r ecor d that M ahm oo d took anyst eps t o inquir e abo ut the st atus of h i s case13 dur i ng the more t han ei ght een mont hs thatp ass ed betw een the d en ial of hi s m ot i on and the t i m e thathe r ece i ved thatl etter, notw i ths t andi ng that i t t ook farl es s t i m e forhi m t o r ece i ve the ru lin g o n th e f

ir s t m o tio n to re o p e n . Fur therm or e, ther e i s an addi t i on al ti m e per i od that pas s ed w i thoutanys ugges t i on of di l i gence . T he B I A di s m i s s ed M a h m o o d ’s u n tim e lya p p e a l in Ju n e 2 0 0 1 , b u t itw a s n o t u n til m o re tha n a y ea r l ater, in Ju ly2 0 0 2 , that h e f il ed the th ir d m ot i on t o r eopen. M or eover , ther e i s no i ndi cat i on thathe w as a ttem p tin g to s e e k n e w c o u n se l o r o th e rw ise tak in g ste p s to pur s ue hi s i m m i gr at i on cas e dur i ng thi s per i od. W h e th e r a n a lien h a s e x e rc ise d d u e d ili g e n c e g e n e ra lly sh o u ld b e d e ter m in e d b yth e IJ in th e f irst in sta n c e , an d typ ica lly a r e ma n d wou l d b e i n o r d e r a b s e n t a f i n d i n g o f d i l i gence ( or la c k th e re o f

). Cf

. I NS v

. V entura , 5 3 7 U
. S
. 1 2 , 1 6 (20 0 2 ) ( per cur i am ) ( “G ener al l ys peaki ng, a courtof appe al s s houl d r emand a ca s e t o an age ncyfordeci s i on of a ma tt erthats t atut es pl ace pri m ari l yi n ag encyhan ds. ”). W hen the o utcom e is cl ear as a m a tte r o f la w , h o w e v e r, r e m a n d is n o t n e c e s s a ry. See Borge s , 402 F. 3d at407 ( concl udi ng thatthe al i en had e xer ci sed due d ili g e n c e a s a m a tter o f law ). T h o u g h it i s g o o d to “ b e a r[ ] in m i nd that[M ah m o od] i s a for ei gnerw ho m ay , ther efor e, have m or e than the ave r age di ffi cul tyi n negot i at i ng the s hoal s of A m er i can l aw , ” P e rv a iz , 405 F. 3d at491, w e ar e al s o m i ndful th a t “[ e ]q u itab le to lli n g is a n e x tra o rd in a ryrem edyw hich shou ld be ext ended onl ys par i ngl y , ” Hedges v. U ni t ed Stat es , 404 F. 3d14 744, 751 (3d C ir
. 2005)
. T aken t ogether , thes e per i ods of unacc ount ed- fordel ayr evea l a l ac k of di l i gence , and thus M a h m o o d is n o t e n title d to to llin g . * * * * * I n th i s c o n t e x t , we d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.