N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ALHAJI SILLAH,

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 18-71473 Age n c y No. A038-904-184
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 Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2020 ** Phoe nix, Ariz ona B e fore : B YB EE, M UR G UIA, a nd B ADE, C irc uit Judge s. Alha ji Silla h— a native and c itiz e n of Sie rra Le o ne
— pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA) de nia l of his spe c ia l m o tion to re ope n de porta tion proc e e dings, whic h sought re lie f unde r form e r § 212(c ) of the Im m i gration a

n d Nationa lity

Ac t (INA). The de a dline for Silla h to se e k re lie f 

# FIL ED DEC 4 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).unde r § 212(c ) wa s April 26, 2005, whic h he m isse d by

se ve ra l y e ars. S

e e 8 C .F.R
. § 1003.44(h). Silla

h c ha lle nge s the filing de a dline , a rguing tha

t it is a n a rbitra ry
and c a p ric ious e x e rc ise of the De pa rtm e nt of Justic e ’ s rule -m aking a uthority
. Alte rnative ly , Silla

h c onte nds tha

t the filing de a d line should ha ve be e n e quita

bly tolle d be c a

u se he dilige ntly

pursue d re lie f. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252(a )(2)(D). W e re vie w the B IA’ s de nia l of a m otion to re o p e n for a

buse of disc re tion a

nd will only

grant a pe t ition for re vie w if the B IA “ a c te d a rbitra rily , irrationa lly , or c ontra

ry to la w.” Martine

z-He rnande

z v . Holde r , 778 F.3d 1086, 1088 (9th C ir. 2015) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tion omitte d). W e de ny

the pe tition. 1. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Silla h ’ s spe c i a l
m otion to re o pe n . In Luna v . Holde r , we he ld tha t the filing de a dline at 8 C .F.R
. § 1003.44(h) is a

“ p rope r proc e dura l rule ” that de se rve s de fe re nc e . 659 F.3d 753, 759–60 (9th C ir. 2011). Luna re m a i ns good la win the fa c e of J

udulang v . Holde r , 565 U.S. 42 (2011). J

u d ulang e va luat e d the substa

ntive re quire m e nts for
e ligibility unde r § 212(c ), a

n d did not c onside r the filing de a dline
. 565 U.S. a t 49, 53. And e ve n if J

udulang a p plie d he re , the filing de a dline would still be va lid be c a use the Exe c utive Offic e for Imm igrat ion R e v ie w (EOIR ) provide d “ a
re a s one d e xpla

n ation” for im

posing thede a d line
. Id. at 45. TheEOIR e xpla ine d
2that

the filing de a dline would a fford a lie ns a n opportunity

to se e k re l ie f unde r § 212(c ) and prom ote fina lity in the ir im

m igration proc e e dings. Se e Se c tion 212(c ) R e lie f for Alie ns with C e rta in C rim ina l C onvic tions B e fore April 1, 1997, 67 Fe d. R e g. 52,627, 52,628 (Aug. 13, 2002). Furthe r, the filing de a dline did not e lim inate Silla h’ s opportunity

to se e k re lie f. It “ sim

ply e sta blishe d a tim e fram e ” for him

to do so. Luna , 659 F.3d a

t 760. Thus, the

EOIR ’ s im

position of a

filing de a dline fe ll within the

re a s ona ble rule -m aking a

uthority of the Attorne y

Ge ne ra l. Id. M ore ove r, the filing de a dline doe s not im pe rm issibly

distinguish be

twe e n
a lie ns ba s e d

on whe n the y

are pla c e d

in re m ova l proc e e dings. Admitte d ly , a n a l ie n pla c e d in re m ova l proc e e dings a fte r the April 26, 2005 de a dline c ould se e k re lie f unde r § 212(c ) a fte r the de a d line , while an a lie n pla c e d in re m ova l proc e e dings be fore the de a dline c ould not. C f. C arde nas-De lgado v . Holde r , 720 F.3d 1111, 1113–14 (9th C ir. 2013) (a lie n pla c e d in re m ova l proc e e d ings in 2006 wa s e ligible to se e k re lie f unde r § 212(c )); 8 C .F.R . § 1212.3(e ). B ut to thee xte nt tha t suc h a distinc tion is a

rbitra ry , filing de a dline s a

re “ inhe re ntly

arbitra ry .” U nite d State

s v . Boy le , 469 U.S. 241, 249 (1985). And though the de a dline “ ope ra te [d] ha rshly ”
a ga inst Silla

h, tha t is not a suffic ie nt re a son to e lim inate the de a dline
. Se e Unite d State s v . Loc k e , 471 U.S. 84, 101 (1985). The B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t Silla h’ s

3spe c ia l m otion to re ope n wa s untim e ly unde r 8 C .F.R . § 1003.44(h) wa s not a n
a buse o f disc re tion. 2. Ne xt, the B IA re a sona bly de nie d Silla

h’ s re que st to e q

uita bly toll the filing de a dline
. To wa

rrant e quita

ble tolling, Silla

h m ust de m onstra

te that his fa ilure to tim e ly

file wa s be y ond his c ontrol de s pite dilige ntly pursuing his rights. Se e Smith v . Dav is , 953 F.3d 582, 597–98 (9th C ir. 2020) (e n ba n c ). Silla h c la im s that he dilige n tly

pursue d his rights by

a sking Im

m igrations a

nd C u stom s Enforc e m e nt (IC E) offic e rs during his a nnua l IC E c he c k-ins whe the r any c ha nge in the l aw c ould sa

ve him from

re m ova l. B ut the re is no e vide nc e that IC E offic e rs
we re aware of Silla

h’ s e ligibility

to se e k re lie f unde r § 212(c ) or tha t the y we re qua lifie d to give the ty

p e of le ga l a dvic e Silla

h sought. This is not a

c a se of a pe t itione r re c e iving ba d le ga l a dvic e from an attorne y . Se e Av agy an v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ W e c annot pe na liz e individuals . . . for re a sona bly re ly ing on thea dvic e of c o unse l, e ve n if tha t c ounse l turns out to ha

ve be e n inc om p e te nt . . . .” ). Silla

h ’ s a nnua l inte ra c t ions with IC E
we re lim i te d to “ e nsuring tha t [he ] c om

plie d with his order of supe rvision.”Those
c he c k-ins did not involve an in-de pth re vie w of his re m ova l proc e e d ings. M e a nwhile , Silla

h ha d am ple opportunity

to c onsult a

n attorne y a fte r be i ng found to be re m ova

b le in June 1996 but fa ile d to do so until De c e m be r 2017. The B IA
4re a s ona

bly de te rm ine d

tha t Silla h did not de m o nstra

te the ne c e ssa

ry dilige nc e to toll thefiling de a dline
. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D. Silla h’ s a c c om

pa ny ing m otion for sta

y of re m ova l is DE NIE D AS M O O T
.

5