## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 2841 L EON I DA M. S A RMI E NT O an d R OM E O L. S ARMIE NTO, P etitio ners , v. E R I C H. H OLDER, J R ., A tto rneyGenera l ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

P etition fo r Review o f anOrd er o f the B o ard of Immigration App eals

. No s. A 097 867 848 &A 097 867 849

A RG UE D A PRI L 25, 2012

— D ECI DE D M AY 21, 2012

Befo re P OSNER, S YKESa nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. An al i en subj ect to an o rder o fr emov alha s 90 da y s fr o m the e nt r y o fa f inala dm i ni str ative o rdero fr em ova l to se ek to re open the re m ova l p ro c ee d in gs . Th e q u es tio n p r es en te d in t h is c as e is w hetherthe fi l i ng o fa m oti on t o re conside r an ordero f r e mov a l t ol l s tha t9 0

- da y p e r i o d u nt i l a r ul i ngi s ma de2 N o. 11

- 2841

on a m ot ion to r eco nsi der. A n I m m i gr ati on J ud ge or dered r em ova l f orLeoni da and Rom eo Sarm iento afte r r efus i ngt o a dj us t th ei r s ta tu s to pe r m an en t re si dents, and the Board o fI m m i gr ati on Ap peals dism issed their app eal. Th e Sarm ien t o s m oved the B oard f orr eco nsi dera ti on, wh i ch i t deni ed. W i thi n 90 days o f that denia l, but sev er alm onths afterthe Board’ s ini ti al d ism issal, the Sarm ientos m oved to reopen
. Th e B oard denie d the m oti on as u n tim el y, co ncl ud i ng tha t a m o ti o n t o r eo penmustb e fi l ed wi th i n 9 0 d ays ofthe di smi ss alo fthe Bo ar d a ppea l, r eg ar dl es s o fthe p en d en cy of a m otion to recon side r the rem oval order. B ec au se th e B oa rd ’s in te rp re ta tio n of th e a p p lica b le sta tute and regula ti on i s r easonabl e, the peti ti on f or r e v i e w pr e s e nt e d t o thi s c o ur ti s de ni e d.

I . B a c kg r o und The Sa rm i ento s, ci ti zens of the Phi l i pp i nes, ente re d th e U n ite d St a t e s u n d er n on im m igr an t v isa s, L eo n id a in 2003 and Rom eo in 2004. A bou t a m ont h be fore Leon ida’s vi sa w as setto expi re , herem plo yerpeti ti oned on her b e ha l ff o r a l i e n- wo r k e r s t a tus, and s he a pp l i e d fo r a dj ustm ent o fst atus. Leoni da i s a nurse and qualifi ed as a s k i l l e d wo r k e r o r pr o fe s s i o na l u nd e r 8 U. S

. C. § 1 153(b) ( 3) ( A ) ( i ) o r ( i i )
. A t the sa m e t i m e, Rom eo appli ed fo r adj ustm ent o fst atus as Leoni da’s spouse . The peti ti on f orworke r sta tus was gr anted i n l ate 20 04. Te n months l ater, i m m i g r at i o n o ffi ci al s den i ed th e Sar m i ento s’ appli cat ions f oradj ustm ent o fst atus becau se L eon id a ha d not su bm itted eviden ce of her certif-N o. 11

- 2841 3 i cati on t o pract i ce nursin g in the U ni ted S tat es, as requ ired by 8 U

. S. C

. § 1182(a)(5) (C) (the resu lts ofa necess ar y Engl i sh exam were pend i ng)
. The S ar m i ento s reap p li ed f or adj us tm en t of statu s a few m ont hs l ater, b u tth e i r a p p l i c a t i o n s w e r e a g a i n d e n i e d , th i s t i me because L eonida fi l ed herse cond appli cati on f oradj ustm en t o fst atus afterherl aw ful sta tus had l apsed f or o ve r 1 80 da ys, r en der i nghe r i ne l i g ibl e f o r a dj us tment of s ta tu s. See i d. § 12 55( c) ( 7) , ( k)

. The Departm ent o f H om ela n d Sec u rit y b eg an rem ov al p ro c ee d in gs in l ate 20 07. A t a r em ova l hear i ng be f or e the IJ, the Sar m i ento s re n ew ed th eir ap p lica tio n s t o a dj u st th eir st at u s . T h e IJ denie d the S ar m i ento s’ appli cati ons a n d or dered the m rem oved

. H e exp lai ne d that he cou ld n ot renew Le onid a’s fi rs t a p p licati on be cause i t had notbee n proper l y fi l ed in t he fi rs t instance since i t di d not incl ud e e vi dence of her nu rsing cert ification. A nd , accord ing to the IJ, Leoni da w as inel i gibl e foradj ustm ent o fst atus und er he r s ec o nd a ppl i cation be ca us e sh e fi l ed i t afte r l i ving i n the U ni ted S tat es unlawful l y form or e than 180 days. The Sa rm i ento s a pp eal ed to the Board, argu in g that thei r first a pp l i cati on had bee n proper l y fi l ed and that thei r unlawfulpres en c e in the Unite d Sta tes f oro ver 180 d ays w as a resu lt ofan error by the ir f o r m e r attorne y. I n J une 2 01 0, the Bo ar d di smi ss ed th e appe al, c o ncl ud i ng tha t the S ar m i ento s had notsho w n that thei r counselwas i neffecti ve and tha t th e IJ was cor re ct that they w er e not el i gibl e to adj ust sta tus because th ey ha d been i n th e U nited States un law full y for m ore than 18 0 days

.4 N o. 11

- 2841 A m onth l ate r, the Sar m iento s m ove d fo r re consi deratio n, r ehashi ng the ar gum ents they had m ade i n th eir i ni ti als ubmi ss io n t o the Bo ar d. The Bo ar d de ni ed th e m oti on in Decem ber20 10, expl ai ni ng tha t the m oti on f ai l ed to po i nto uta ny e r r o r s o ff ac t o r l aw i n the o r i g i na l di smi ss al

. N i ne m o nths afte r the Bo ard dis m i sse d thei r or i gi nal appealbut w i thi n 90 days o f th e Bo ar d’ s den i alo ftheirmot i o n t o r ec o ns i der, the S ar m i en to s m o ve d t o r eo peni n Mar ch2 01 1. The y c o nten d e d , w ith su p p orting evid en ce, that th ey w ere n ew ly elig ible for a dj u st m en t o f st at u s b e c a u s e t h eir daughter, a U ni ted S tat es ci ti zen who w as now 21 , had peti ti oned to adj ust s tatus on thei r behal f, and thos e pe t i t i o ns h a d b e e n a pp r o v e d. T h e B oa rd d et er m in ed th at th e m ot ion w as u n tim ely and denied it

. The Boar d explained that the m oti on was du e withi n 90 day s of i ts “fi nal adm i ni str ati ve or der of re m ov al,” w h ich it sa id w as th e d ec is ion iss u ed in J une 2 01 0 di smi ss i ngthe S ar m i en to s’ a ppea l, no t th e l at er o r der i n Dec embe r den y i ng th ei r m o ti on to r ec o ns i d e r . T h e S a r mi e n t o s th e n p e t i t i o n e d f o r r e v i e w.

II . A n alysis The I m m i gr ati on an d N ati onal i ty A ct pr ovi des that a “mot i o n t o r eo pens ha l l be fil ed wi th i n 9 0 day s o fthe date o fentry o fa f

i nal adminis t r at i veor de rof re m oval .” 8 U. S

. C. § 1 22 9a ( c) ( 7) ( C) ( i ) ( emphasis added)

. The Sar m i ento s a rgue thatthe Boar d’s denia l o fthei r m oti on to re consi der w as a fi nal o rdero fr em ova l and that th ey m ay m ov e t o r eo p en th e B oa rd ’s d ism iss al w ith inN o. 11

- 2841 5 9 0 d a y s o fa n y fi n a l o r d e r o fr e mo v a l a g a i n s tth e m. They co ncl ud e, ther ef or e, thatthe 90- day dead lin e fo r m oving to reop en run s from the d ate t h a t t h e cou rt den i ed th ei r mot i o n t o r ec o ns i deri n Decem ber, making th ei r M ar chmot i o n t o r eo pent imel y . The g o ve r nm en t re sp on d s t h at th e Sa rm ien to s’ m ot ion w as u n tim ely because theyhad to m ov e t o re open withi n 90 days o f th e spe ci fi c o r derthe y wer e ch al l en g i ng

— a n d that order, acco rdi ng to the g ove rnm ent, was the Board’ s ini ti al d ism iss al of t h eir ap p ea l. The I N A’s tim e lim i t f o r movingt o r eo peni s ambi g uou s. First, § 1229a(c)(7)( C )( i) doe s not sta te w h e th er a m o ti o n t o r eo penmay be fi l ed wi th i n 9 0 day s o f anyfi nal o r dero fr emov al, o r mustb e fi l ed wi th i n 9 0 day s o fthe spe cif ic fin al or d er of re m ov al t h at a p ar ty se ek s t o c h allenge. Second , the IN A ’s definition of w hen a n o rdero f re m ova l bec om es “fi nal ” has been i nter prete d in tw o w ays . The I N A i tse l fpro vi des thatan o rderi s fin al w hen ei ther ( 1 ) t h e Bo a r d a ffi r ms t h e IJ ’ s r e mo v a l o r d e r, o r ( 2 ) th e t i me to ap p ea l th e IJ’s re m o v a l o rd er to th e B oa rd ex p ire s. 8 U .S.C . § 11 01 (a)( 47 )(B ). (Sec tio n 11 01 (a)( 47 )(B ) ac tu ally re fer s t o an “o rder of deporta ti on, ” but that ter m i s s ynonym ous with “o rd er o fr em ova l

. ” Vira ca ch a v. M uk a sey, 51 8 F.3 d 51 1, 51 3-1 4 (7 th C i r . 2 00 8).) So m e d ec isio n s re ad th is provi si on t o l i m i t “ fi nal ” o rder s o fr em ova l to these tw o in st an c es , s e e O ca m po v. Ho lder, 62 9 F
. 3d 923, 92 7 (9t h C ir. 20 10 ), bu t o th er s u n d er s t an d it to im p licit ly i nc l ude o r der s di spo singo fmot i o ns t o r eo pena nd r ec o nsid er as “fi n a l ” o rd er s o f rem ov al, s e e, e . g. , Br onis z v. A shcroft, 378 F.3d 63 2, 63 6-3 7 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ); D avev. A shcroft, 36 3 F
. 3d 649, 65 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04); Cho w v . INS ,6 N o. 11

- 2841 113 F. 3d 659, 66 3- 64 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) , a b r o g a ted o n o ther groun ds b y LaGue r r e v. Ren o , 164 F.3d 103 5 (7th C ir. 1998); Cr u z v . A t t o r n eyG e n. , 4 5 2 F. 3d 240, 246 (3d Cir. 2006); S a r ma d iv . INS , 121 F.3d 131 9, 1321 -22 (9th C ir. 1997). W hen a sta tute i s a m b iguous, co urts m ust deferto an ag ency’ s r eas onabl e inter preta ti on of the s tatute. C hevron, U
. S.A ., Inc. v. Natural R es ource s D ef ens e C ouncil, Inc. , 467U .S. 83 7, 84 2-4 4 (1 98 4); E sco b a rv . H o lder, 65 7 F.3 d 53 7, 54 2 (7 th C ir. 20 11 ); D awoud v. G o nz a les , 42 4 F. 3d 608, 61 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. H er e the Board ’s regula

ti on co rre sponding to § 1 229a ( c) ( 7) ( C)( i ) expl ai ns that a m oti on t o re op en “ m ust be fi l ed no l ate r than 90 days a fterthe date o n w hi ch the fi nal adm i nist ra tive de c i s i o n wa s r e nd e r e d in th e pro ceedi ng so u g h t to be re

o pen ed

. ” 8 C. F
. R. § 1 00 3. 2( c) ( 2) ( emphas i s adde d)

. The B oar d was e ve n mor e spe ci fi c i n In reKhan , 200 7 B IA L E X IS 60 (B IA Ju n e 1 5, 20 0 7 )
. T h er e, on fac ts n ea rly i denti c a l t o thi s c a s e , i t he l d tha t the 9 0 da y s t o fi l e a m oti on t o re open a re m oval o rderr uns fro m the date th e Boar d dism i sse d the appealo fthe IJ ’ s r em ova l or de r, a nd n o tthe da t e tha tthe Bo a r d rul e d o n a mo ti on to re consid er . Id. at* 1 ( ci ti ng M at t e ro f L

- V- K-, 2 2 I
. & N. Dec. 97 6 ( BIA 1999) )
. In reKhan i s no t a pre cedenti al Bo ar d de ci si o n, b uti t ex pr es sly r el i es o n r el ev an t B oard pre c e d e n t in reach ing its dec isi on an d therefore i s e nti tl ed to Che vron d efe re n c e. Se eEs co b ar, 65 7 F.3 d at 5 4 2; A rob elidz e v. Ho lder, 653 F.3d 513 , 519 (7th C ir. 20 11 ); R o hitv . H o lder, 670 F.3d 108 5, 1087 -88 (9th C ir. 20 12 ); Qu i n c h i a v . U. S
. A t t o r n eyG e n. , 5 52 F. 3d 1255 , 12 58 (11th Cir. 2008).N o. 11

- 2841 7 The Bo ar d’ s i nt er pr et ati o n o fthe s ta tu te , r equi r i ng p arties to m ove to reop en w ithin 90 d ays of the B oard ’s i ni ti aldi sm i ssa l, i s r eas onabl e. To c oncl ud e o ther w i se w ould a l l ow al i ens t o re cei ve extr a t i m e t o m ove to re open thei r case s by the si m ple expedient of fi l in g fri vol o us mot i o ns t o r ec o ns i der

. M o r eo ve r, r ej ec tingthe Board’ s inter preta ti on wo uld cr eat e a ci rcui t s pli t with th e F ifth an d N in th C irc u its
. S e e Veg a v. Ho lder, 61 1 F
. 3d 11 68 , 117 0-7 1 (9 th C ir.), petiti o n fo r cert. filed, (U
. S. D ec. 13 , 20 10 ) (N o. 10

- 8 0 10 ); Wi l l i a m v . INS , 21 7 F
. 3d 340, 34 2- 43 (5th C ir. 2000). T hos e cir c u its d ecid ed that the B oard r ea so nabl y i nt er pr et ed th e appl i cabl e r egul at i o n, 8 C. F
. R. § 1 003. 2( c) ( 2) ( f or m er l y § 3. 2( c) ( 2) ) , to requ i re a m oti on to reo p en to be filed w ith in90 d ay s o f th e o rd er it is c h all engi ng, and then r eas oned thata m oti on t o re open can o nl y t ar gett h e B oar d’s or i gi nal di sm i ssa l

. W e a gr ee w i th thi s a nal ysi s. The re gul ati on s tat es that the m oti on t o reo pen m ust be fi l ed w ithin 90 days ofthe spe cif icpr o ce edingb eing chal l enged. A m oti on t o re open cannotc h alleng e a n o r derdi sposi ng o fa mot i o n t o r ec o ns i derb ec au se the m ot ion s h av e c on flict in g e vid en tia r y req u ire m en ts : A par tymusts ubmi t ne w ev i den ce f o r a mot i o n t o r eo pen, s ee 8 U .S.C . § 12 29 a(c )(7) ; M uno ngo v. G o nz a les , 47 9 F. 3d 531, 53 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) , wh er eas a partym ay not su b m it n ew ev id en c e fo r a m ot ion to rec on sid er , see 8 U
. S. C

. § 1229a(c)(6); M uno ngo , 47 9 F
. 3d at 5 34

- 35. There

f or e, the S ar m i ento s’ m oti on t o re open ( w hi ch i ncl ud ed ne w ev iden ce) c anb e se eno nl y a s a ch al l en g e to the und e r l y i ngr e mov a l o r de r, n o tthe r ul i ngo n the moti on to recon side r. Se eVega , 6 11 F
. 3d at1 17 0- 71 ( st at i ng8 N o. 11

- 2841 that “offer i ng new evi dence thr ough a m oti on t o r e o p e n th e r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n p r o c e e d i n gw o u l d b e i na pp ro p ria te . Th e v er y p u rp os e o f a m ot ion to reo p en is to offernew evi dence. The new evi dence, ther ef or e, can o nl y per tain to the i ni ti alm er i ts deter m in at ion that th e a lien is re m ov ab le.” (cit at ion om itt ed )); Wi l l i am , 217 F. 3d at 342 ( “[ B]eca use an a li en wh o see ks to i nt r o duce new ev ide nc e ca n r eo peno nl y a pr o ce eding th ato nc e was o penf o r the r ec ei pt o fev i den ce , the m ot ion to re open m ust l oo k b ack to an ev i denti ar y pr oc ee d i ng r atherthan to the deni alo fr eco nsi derat i on. ”) Because the S ar m i ento s’ m ove d to reop en m or e than 90 da y s afte r the Bo ar d di smi ss ed their appe alo fthe IJ ’ s r em ova l o rder, thei r m oti on i s unti m el y. This i nter preta tion is consi ste nt with how co urts tr eat d ea d lin es to p et itio n for jud icia l rev iew of B oa rd d ec isi ons. The S up re m e Cour t has hel d t h at a r em ova l o rder i s ind ependent ofa l ate r or der denying a m oti on to reconsi der o r re open, and that ther ef or e a m oti on to re consi der o r re open does n ot e xtend the t i m e t o ap p ea l t h e u n d er lyin g or d er . S t o n ev . INS , 51 4 U.S

. 38 6, 39 4- 9 5 ( 1 9 9 5 )
. F o l l o win gfr o m St one, a p eti ti on f orr evi ew mu s tb e fi l e d wi t h i n th e d e a d l i n e r u n n i n gfr o m “ t he speci fic o rder soughtto be re vi ew ed

. ”No c o n v . INS , 78 9 F.2 d 1 02 8, 1 03 3 ( 3d Ci r . 1 98 6) ( emphas i s i n o r i g inal); a cco rd M ura to ski v. Ho lder, 622 F.3 d 824, 829-30 (7th Cir. 201 0); Yo uk ha na v. G o nz a les , 460 F.3d 927, 933-34 (7th C ir. 2006 ); A sere v. Go nz a les , 439 F.3d 378 , 380-81 (7th C ir. 20 06 ); To ufig hi v . M uk a sey, 538 F.3d 988 , 9 95 (9th C ir. 2008); Kaur v. BIA , 413 F.3d 232 , 233 (2d Cir. 2 0 0 5 ) (p er cu riam ). Be c a u s e th e t i me t o p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w i s p e g g e d t o theN o. 11

- 2841 9

or d er to be rev iew ed , th e n t h e B oa rd h as rea so n ab ly concl ud ed that the t i m e t o m ove to r eopen i s p eg ge d to the o r de r t o b e r e o pe ne d. The Sar m i ento s i nsi st that the Board ’s inte rpre tat i on i s unreaso nabl e. They c onte nd thatr equi ring a m oti on to r e o pe n t o b e fi l e d wi thin 9 0 da y s o f the o r de r i t s eek s to c ha l l en g e, ra th ertha n the l as t dec i si o n i ss ue d b y the Board, unfa i rl y l i m its t h eir abi l i ty to fi l e bo th a m oti on to recon side r an d a m otion to reop en . B ut th e B o a r d ’s approach does n ot pro hibi t par ti es fro m m oving bo th f o r r ec o ns i der at i o n a nd r eo pen i ng ; i t sim p l y t i g ht en s th e ti m el i ne f o r doin g s o . The a ppr o ac h i s th us consi ste nt with the purpos e o fthe deadli nes, w hi ch i s t o “expedit e pet i ti ons f orr evi ew ” a nd pre vent “successi ve an d frivo lou s a d m in ist ra tiv e a p p ea l s a n d m ot ion s.” St one, 51 4 U.S

. at39 9- 400. The S a r mi e nt o s ’ fi na l a r g ume nti s tha te v e n i fthey m i sse d the 90

- day deadl i ne, i t s houl d have be en equitab l y t o l l ed. The g o ve r nm en t r es po nds tha t th e Sar m i ento s ca nnot r ai se thi s ar gu m ent o n appeal because they f ai l ed to ex h au st thei r adm i ni str ati ve r emedi es b y no t r ai singthe i ss ue b efo r e th e Bo ar d. The Sarm ientos rep ly th at th ey invoked equ itable consid era t i o ns i n the i r moti on t o r e o pe n a nd tha tthe Bo a r d a dd ressed equ itable consid erations in its order. T h e Sa rm ien to s m ay n otrais e t h e is s u e o f eq u ita b le tol l i ng her e. A party m ust e xhaust al l adm i ni str ati ve rem ed ies before seeking review by this cou rt, and f ail ure to ra ise a sp ec ific i ss u e be for e th e B oa rd t y p i c ally for ec l os es a p ar ty from rais in g it o n ap p ea l. Arob e l i dze,10 N o. 11

- 2841 65 3 F
. 3d at5 16

- 17
. In th ei r b r i eft o the Bo ar d, the Sarm ient o s d id not m en tion eq uitab le tol ling ( or a sim ilar co n c ep t like eq u ita b le es to p p el, see So co p-G o nz a lez v . INS , 27 2 F
. 3d 1176 , 11 85 ( 9th Ci r. 2 00 1)), nordi d they c ite any case s co ncer ni ng equi tabl e t ol l i ng. Thei r only allu sio n t o e q u ity , ask in g in th eir co n c lu sio n th at th eir case be reop en ed “[i ]n the ex e r cise of j us tice and f airn e s s ,” w as to o v ag u e. T h eir failu re to inv ok e e q u ita b le tol l i ngc o ul d b e e xc us e d i fthe Bo a r d h a d n o ne the l e ss ad d re ss ed th e is su e, s e eAr ob e l i dze, 6 53 F
. 3d at5 17, b ut i t di d no t. The Bo ar d m er el y obse r ve d tha t th e Sar m i ento s’ ci rcum sta nces did notj usti fy r eope n ing o n the Boa rd’ s o w n m oti on. The S ar m i ento s thus f ai l ed to exhaust thei r adm i ni str ati ve re m edies w i th r espectto equi tabl e t ol l i ng. The peti ti on f orr evi ew i s D ENI ED .

5- 21- 12