N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
OSC AR EDUAR DO HUELGAS, Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-72518 Age n c y No. A092-190-293
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 12, 2018 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, B EA, a n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Osc ar Edua

rdo Hue lga s, a

native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the orde r by

the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) (a ) dism issing his
a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of Hue lga s ’ s m otion to re ope n 

# FIL ED FEB 27 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.and (b) de ny ing Hue lga s’ s m otion to re m and. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
.

§ 1252. W e grant the pe tition for re vie w. 1. The B IA a

buse d its disc re tion in re

je c t ing Hue lga s’ s re que st for e quita ble tolling of the

nine t y -da y filing de a dline
. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(2); se e also Iturribarria v. IN

S , 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th C ir. 2003) (holding tha t e quita ble tolling is a

va ila ble “ whe n a

pe titione r is pre ve nte d from filing [a m otion to re ope n] be c a use of de c e ption, fra

ud, or e rror, a s long a s the pe t itione r a c ts with due dilige n c e in disc ove ring the de c e ption, fra ud, or e rror” ). Hue l ga s re que ste d
e quita ble tolling, be c a

use he a lle ge s the im

m igration judgec om

m itte d e rror by fa iling to inform Hue lga s tha t he m ay hav e be e n e l igible for re lie f from re m ova l. The B IA he ld tha

t the Hue lga s’ s c l a im s a

re not “ a lle gations of ‘ de c e ption, fraud, or e rror’ ” but ra

the r “ a tta c ks on the unde rly ing re m ova l orde r.” The gove rnm e nt a sse rts tha

t the B IA m e ant tha

t the re wa s no a lle gation of de c e p tion, fraud, or e rror, be c a

use (a t the tim e of the he aring) Hue lga s ha d not de m onstra

te d
a ppa re nt e ligibility

for § 212(c ) re lie f. Howe ve r, it is not c l e ar that the B IA found that Hue l ga s wa s not a

ppa re ntly e ligiblefor § 212(c ) re lie f, the re fore , we c annot
a ffirm on this ground. Se eN

av as v . IN S , 217 F.3d 646, 658 n.16 (9th C ir. 2000) (W e “ c annot a ffirm

the B IA on a

ground upon whic h it did not re ly
. ” ).

2As a ge ne ra l rule , “ [i] m m igration judge s m

ust a de quate ly e xpla in the he aring proc e dure s to the a lie n, a nd whe re im

m igra nts proc e e d pro se , the judge s have a duty

to fully de ve lop the re c ord. The y are a lso re quire d to inform im m igra nts of a ny a bility to a pply for re lie f from

re m ova l a

nd the right to a

ppe a l
re m ova l orde rs.” J

.E.F.M. v . Ly nc h , 837 F.3d 1026, 1036-37 (9th C ir. 2016) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks a nd c ita tions omitte d); s e e also C .J .L.G. v . Se

ssions , 880 F.3d 1122, 1147 (9th C ir. 2018) (noting tha t an IJ m ust a dvise an a lie n of

“ a p pa re nt e ligibility” to a

pply for re lie f from

re m o va l (quoting 8 C .F.R
. § 1240.11(a)(2)). B e c a

use “ [f] a ilure to a dvise an a lie n of ‘ a ppa re nt e ligibility ’ to
a pply for re lie f [would be ] a

due proc e ss viola

tion,” C .J .L.G. , 880 F.3d a

t 1147-48 (quotingUnite d State

s v . Rojas-Pe droza , 716 F.3d 1253, 1263 (9th C i r. 2013)), the B IA e rre d whe n it c onc lude d tha t the IJ’ s fa i lure to inform wa s not a n a lle gation of

“ de c e ption, fra

ud, or e rror.” Se e Iturribarria , 321 F.3d a t 897. As a re sult, theB IA fa ile d provide a re a sone d e xpla

nation with re ga

rd to whe the r the IJ c om

m itte d e rror whe n the IJ fa ile d to inform Hue lga s tha

t he m ay have be e n e ligible for re lie f from

re m ova l. Se e Mov

sisian v . Ashc roft , 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th C ir. 2005) (noting tha t the B IA “ a

buse s its disc re t ion whe n it fa ils to provide a

re a sone d e xpla

nation for its a c tions” ). “ W i thout knowing the ba sis of the B IA’ s de c ision, we c a nnot c onduc t a

m e a n ingful re vie w” of it. D e lgado v

. 3Holde r , 648 F.3d 1095, 1108 (9th C ir. 2011) (e n ba nc ). W e the re fore re m and to the B IA so tha

t it c a n provide a

re a sone d de c i sion. 2. W e a gre e with the gove rnm e nt tha t the B IA a l so fa ile d to providea re a sone d de c ision with re g ard to (a ) whe the r Hue lga s de m onstra t e d due dilige nc e in filing the m otion to re ope n, a

nd (b) whe the r the IJ’ s fa ilure prope rly to a dvise Hue lga s of possible grounds for re lie f pre judic e d him . The re fore , we a lso re m a n d the s e issue s. Se e Mov

s isian , 395 F.3d a

t 1098. 1 PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W G RANT E D; RE M ANDE D .

1 In light of our disposition, we ne e d not a ddre s s Hue lga s’ s re m a ining issue s ra ise d on a

ppe a l. 4