2006 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
6-5-2006 

# L untungan 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 . 05-2397

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_2006

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 2006 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

" Luntun gan v

. Atty Ge n U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 804. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/804P 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. 05- 2397

J UL I AN B AS T I AN L UNT UNGAN , P et i t i oner

v. AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L OF T HE U N I TED STA TES; S E CR E T AR Y OF DE P AR T M E NT OF H O M E L A N D S E C U R IT Y ; M IC H A E L A N D E R S O N , as A ct i ng D i r ect orof the N ew ark, N ew J er s ey Fi el d O ffi ce of

the B ur eau of

I m m i gr at i on a n d Cus t o ms En f

o r c e me n t ; UN I TED ST A T E S D E PA R T M E N T O F JU ST I C E and UNI T E D S T AT E S DE P AR T M E NT OF HO M ELAN D SECU RI TY

Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B oar d N o. A 96- 266- 204)2 A r gued A pr i l 3, 2006 B e f o re : R E N D E L L , S M IT H , a n d B E C K E R * , C i r cui tJudges

.

( Fi l ed J une 5, 2006 )

L AWRE NC E S P I VAK ( ARGUE D) 150 B r oadw ay , Sut i e 1400 N ew Y or k, N Y 10038 A t t or ney f

orP et i t i oner LI NDA S
. W ERNE RY J ANI CE K. RE DF E RN ( ARGUE D) W I LLI AM C. PEACH EY 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 tto rn e

y s fo r R e sp o n d e n ts

* T h is c a se w a s a rg u e d b e f o re th e p a n e l o f Ju d g e s R e n d e ll, S m ith an d B ec k er. Jud g e B ec k er d ied o n M ay1 9 , 2 0 0 6 , b ef o re the fi l i ng of the O pi ni on. T he dec i s i on i s fi l ed bya quorum of the p an el. 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 4 6 (d).3 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

P E R C U R I A M. J ul i an B as t i an Luntungan, a nat i ve and c i t i zen of I n d o n e s i a a n d th e p e t i t i o n e ri n th i s c a s e , f a i l e d t o a t t e n d two cons ecut i ve r emoval hear i ngs , and an I m m i gr at i on J udge ( “I J ”) or d ere d hi m r emoved i n abs ent i a. L untungan then fi l ed thr ee cons ecu ti v e mot i ons t o r eopen, w hi ch the I J deni ed, and L u n tun g an ap p ea led th e d en ial o f th e third m o ti o n to the B o ard of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”)

. R evi ew i ng the deni al of the thi r d m ot i on, the B I A agr eed w i th the I J thatL u n tun g an w as perm i t t ed t o fi l e onl y one m ot i on t o r eopen. T hi s concl us i on, of cour s e, r equi r ed the deni al of hi s thi r d m ot i on. A dd res si ng L un tun gan ’s peti t i on for r eview , w e fi rs t concl ude thatunder the pl ai n l anguage of both the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ct and a B I A r egul at i on, an al i en or der ed re m o v e d in a b s e n tia m a yf ile o n ly o n e m o tio n to re o p e n . See 8 U
. S. C
. § 1229a( c) ( 7) ; 8 C
. F. R
. § 1003. 2 3( b) ( 4) ( i i )

. W e then cons i der L untungan’ s cont ent i on that w e s houl d rea d an exce pt i on i nt o t he one mot i on rul e bec aus e hi s att orneyw as in e f f e c tiv e in p re p a rin g th e f irst m o tio n to re o p e n . O th e r c o u rts have r efe r r ed t o exce pt i ons t o the one mot i on rul e as a form ofSee, e. g. , I t ur r i bar r i a v. I

. N

. S. , 3 2 1 F
. 3 d 8 8 9 , 8 9 7 (9th C ir

. 1 2 0 0 3 ). W e n o te, h o w e v e r, th a t th e ter m m a yn o t b e e n tirely ac c u r a t e , f

o rt o l l i n g , b yd e f

i n i t i o n , a p p l i e s t o t i me l i mi t s , not n u m e ri c a l lim its

. See B lack’s La w D i ct i on ary 1525 ( 8th ed. 2004) ( defi ni ng “t ol l ” as “( O f a t i m e per i od, es p. a s t atut ory one) t o s t op the ru n n ing o f; t o ab ate < toll the lim it ati o n s p eriod > ”). 4 equi t abl e t ol l i ng. W e l e a v e o p e n th e p o s s i bi l i tyth a ts o me 1 e q u itab le p rin c ip le w o u ld , in th e p ro p e r c irc u m sta n c e s, p e rm it a n a lien to f

ile m o re th a n o n e m o tio n to re o p e n , b u t w h a tev e r its bounds , equi t abl e t ol l i ng w i l l notai d L untungan. E ven assum i ng that the all eged i neff ect i ven ess of

L un tun gan ’s fi rs t at t orne y de pr i ve d hi m of a fa i r c ha nc e t o be he a r d on hi s fi rs t m ot i on t o r eopen, the I J deni ed L untungan’ s s econd mot i on for r eas ons unr el at ed t o the one mot i on rul e, and Luntungan does not cl ai m that the at t orney w ho fi l ed t he sec ond m ot i on r ender ed i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l

. Th u s , e v e n a s s u mi n g t hat L untungan’ s fi r s tm ot i on t o r eopen di d notpr ovi de a f ai rchanc e t o be hea r d, anypr ocedur al unfai rnes s w as r emedi ed w hen the I J cons i der ed the s econd mot i on. W e ther efor e deny L u n tu n g a n ’ s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. I. F a cts L untungan w as admi t t ed t o the U ni t ed S t at es i n J une 1995, w i th perm i s s i on t o r emai n unt i l D ece m ber15, 1995. In A pr i l of 2003, L untungan appl i ed for as y l um . H e as s ert ed that hi s hous e had be en burned dow n, and that he fe ar ed per s ecut i on in In d o n e sia b e c a u se h e is a p ra c ticin g C h ristia n a n d e th n ica lly C hi nes e. T h e for m erI m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ceT he st atute pr ov i des: 2 C ons equenc es of fa i l ur e t o appea r
5 th e n se rv e d L u n tu n g a n w ith a N o tice to A p p e a r, ch a rg in g h im w i th r emovabi l i tyon the gr ound thathe r emai ned i n the U ni t ed St a t e s l o n g e rth a n h i s v i s a p e r mi t t e d

. Th e Not i c e t o App e ar s t at ed thatL untungan’ s r emoval hear i ng w oul d occuri n N ew Y o rk, N e w Y o rk o n M ay6 , 2 0 0 3 , b u t th e N ew Y o rk Im m igra tio n C o u rtlat er g ran ted L u n tun g an ’s m o ti o n fo r a c h a n g e o f

v e n u e to N e w J e rs e y . L untungan’ s att orney then r ece i ved a N ot i ce of H ear i ng fr om the I m m i gr at i on C our ti n N ew ark, N ew J er s ey . T he N ot i ce of H ear i ng s t at ed thati f Lunt ungan fa i l ed t o appea ron D ecem ber 9, 20 03 , an order of r em ov al cou l d b e enter ed ag ai nst h im

. O n S e p tem b er 2 , 2 0 0 3 , the N ew ark Im m igrati o n C o u rt s entL untungan’ s att orneya s econd N o ti ce o f H ear i ng, w hi ch m oved the dat e of the hea r i ng forw ard t o Sept ember19, 2003. On Se p t e mbe r2 2 , 2 0 0 3 , th e Newa r k I mmi g r a t i o n Cou r ts e nt anotherN ot i ce o f

Hea r i n g t o Lu n tungan’ s att orney , changi ng the hear i ng dat e t o O ct ober28, 2003. L untungan fa i l ed t o appea rforthe O ct o b er 28, 2003 hear i ng, and the I J r esc h ed u le d the hea r i ng forN ovember4, 2003. L u n tungan aga i n fai l ed t o appea ron N ovember4. T h ere fo re, th e IJ ord ere d L u n tun g an rem o v ed u n d er § 2 4 0 (b )(5 )(A ), 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (b )(5 )(A ), w h ich a u th o riz e s in absenti a rem ov al orders

. 2( A ) I n gener al A nyal i en w ho, after w r i t t en not i ce . . . has been pr ovi ded t o the al i en or t he al i en’ s couns el of r ecor d, d o e s n o t a tten d a p ro c e e d in g u n d e r th is se c tio n , sh a ll be or der ed r emoved i n abs ent i a i f the Servi ce e s t a b l i s h e s b yc l e a r , u n e q u i v o c a l , a n d c o n v i nci ng evi dence thatthe w r i t t en not i ce w as s o pr ovi ded and th a t th e a lie n is re m o v a b le

. . . . 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 2 9 a(b )(5)(A ). I n hi s r epl ybr i ef, L untungan s t at es thathe i s “nots eeki ng 3 th is C o u rt ’s re v ie w o f

th e tw o in itia l m o tio n s to re o p e n .”

6 L u n tu n g a n re sp o n d e d b yf ili n g a se rie s o f

m o tio n s to re o p e n . W e e m p h a siz e th a t L u n tu n g a n a s k s u s to re v iew o n ly the deni al of hi s thi r d m ot i on. 3 F irs t Mo tio n T

o R e o p e n . L u n tu n g a n f

irst m o v e d to re o p e n p ro c e e d in g s o n Ja n u a ry2 0 , 2 0 0 4 . In a n a f f id a v it att ache d t o the m ot i on, L untungan i m pl i ed thathi s att orneyhad w r i t t en hi m a l ett er i nform i ng hi m of the r es chedul ed h ea r i ng. H o w ev er, he stat ed that h e d id n o t r ec eive an ys u ch let ter. L un tu n g a n d i d n o t a l l e g e a t th i s s t a g e th a t h i s a t t o rn e yw as i neff ect ive in fai l i ng t o not i fyhi m of the r es chedul ed hea r i ng; ind ee d , th e s am e a tt o rne yco n ti n u ed to rep rese n t him

. T h e IJ deni ed th e m o ti on, s t at i ng thatL untungan’ s att orneyw as pr oper l y not i fi ed of the r es chedul ed hea r i ng and thatL untungan di d not al l ege t hat hi s att orneypr ovi ded i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance .W e have ex p lai ned thatt o compl yw i th Lozada , a mot i on 4 t o r eopen ba s ed on i neff ect i ve as s ist ance of couns el m us tm eet 7 Second M

ot ion T o R eopen . O n M ar ch 5, 2004, L untungan, r epr es ent ed by new couns el , fi l ed a s econd mot i on t o r eopen. L untungan now as s ert ed thathe mi s s ed hi s hear i ng d ates d u e to th e ine ff

ec ti v e a ssist an ce o f h is fo rm er a tt o rne y . In a new aff i davi t , L untungan s t at ed thathe di d notl earn aboutthe d a te c h a n g e s u n til h e v isited h is fo rm e r atto rn e y ’s o f f ice p rio r to th e o r i g i n a l h e a r i n g d a t e , b u ta f t e rh e h a d mi s s e d th e two res ched uled heari ng s. L untungan al s o as s ert ed thathi s att orneyw as i neff ect i ve i n prepar i ng hi s fi r s tm ot i on t o r eopen. H e s t at ed thatthe aff i davi t acc om pany i ng hi s fi r s tm ot i on had notbeen tr ans l at ed to h im , d e sp ite h is in a b ili tyto re a d E n g lish

. H e c laim e d th a t if he had unde r s t ood h is a ff i davi t , he w oul d nothave a ckn ow l edg ed that his form er at t orney at t em pted to c o mmu n i c a t e th e d a t e c h a n g e s t o h i m. O n th e sa m e d a yth a t h e f iled th e s e c o n d m o tio n to re o p e n , L u n tu n g a n lo d g e d a d isc ip lin a ryc o m p lain t a g a in st h is form eratt orneyw i th th e appr opr i at e ethi cs comm i t t ee. H o w e v e r, th e c o m p lain t w a s n o t atta c h e d to th e m o tio n to re o p e n . T h e I J d e n i e d Lu n tu n g a n ’ s s e c o n d mot i o n t o r e o p e n, s t a t i n g th a t h i s i n e f

f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e c l a i m d i d n o t me e tt he r equi r ement s of Mat t erof Lozada , 1 9 I. & N
. D ec . 6 3 7 (B IA 1 9 8 8 ). F irst, L u n tu n g a n f a iled to p r o v id e e v id e n c e th a t h is 4th re e re q u ire m e n ts: ( 1) the al i en’ s m ot i on m us tbe s uppor t ed byan “af fi davi t of the al l egedl yaggr i eved [ al i en] att es t i ng t o the r el evantfac t s ”; ( 2) “form ercouns el m us tbe i nform ed of the al l egat i ons an d al l ow ed the oppor tuni tyt o r es pond, ” and thi s r es pons e s houl d be s ubm i t t ed w i th the m ot i on; and ( 3) “i f i t i s as s ert ed thatpr i o r counse l ’ s handl i ng of the ca s e i nvol ved a vi ol at i on of ethi cal orl egal r es pons i bil i t i es , the m ot i on s houl d r efl ectw hethera compl ai nthas been fi l ed w i th appr opr i at e di s ci pl i naryauthor i t i es re g a rd in g s u c h re p re s e n ta tio n , a n d if n o t, w h yn o t.” Zheng v. G onz al es , 422 F. 3d 98, 106 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( ci t i ng Lozada , 1 9 I. & N
. D ec . at 63 9 ).
8 form erat t orneyw as i nform ed of the i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance al l egat i o n s and gi ven an opportuni tyt o r es pond. Second, L untungan nei therpr ovi ded evi denc e tha the fi l ed a f or m al d is c ip lin a ry c o m p la in t n o r e x p la in e d h is f a ilu re to d o s o . Thi r d Mot i on To R eopen . O n M ay 12, 2004, L untungan f iled a th ird m o tio n to re o p e n . T h is tim e , h e so u g h t to c o m p ly w i th the Lozada r equi r ement s byatt achi n g b o th the compl ai nt l odged aga i ns thi s form eratt orneyand an aff i davi t fr om hi s new att orney , w hi ch chr oni cl ed di s cus s i on betw een the new att orney a n d th e f o rm e r a tto rn e ya b o u t th e d isc ip lin a ryc o m p lain t.I ti s notcl earw hythe I J deni ed the s econd m o tio n to 5 r eopen on the bas i s of Lozada , r ather than appl y i ng the one mot i on rul e. 9 T he IJ d eni ed the mot i on, concl udi ng thatunderthe r el evant reg u la t i ons , L untungan w as ent i t l ed t o fi l e onl yone m o ti o n to reo p en . L u n tun g an a p p ea led th e d en ial o f th e third 5 m ot i on t o the B I A , w hi ch i ssu ed a one par agr aph opi ni on aff i r m i ng the IJ ’ s deci s i on. L untungan now pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the deni al of hi s thi r d m ot i on t o r eopen.

I I . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew W e h av e jurisdicti o n to rev iew the d en ial o f L u n tun g an ’s thir d m o ti on t o r eopen unde r8 U
. S. C
. § 1252, w hi ch pr ovi des forjud ici al r evi ew of fi nal or der s of r emoval

. O r di nar i l y , the deni al of a m ot i on t o r eopen i s r evi ew ed for abus e of di s cr et i on. C aus hiv. A t t or ney G ener al , 4 3 6 F
. 3 d 2 2 0 , 2 2 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 6 ). T h i s c a s e , h o w e v e r , tu rn s e n t i r e l y o n q u e s t i o n s o f l a w . “ We r e vi e w the BI A ’ s l e ga l de c i s i on s de novo , b u t w il l aff o rd C hevr on defe r ence t o the B I A ’ s r eas onabl e i nt erpretati ons of stat ut es w hi ch i ti s char ged w i th admi ni s t er i ng. ” Kama r a v. A t t or ney G ener al , 420 F. 3d 202, 211 ( 3d C i r . 20 0 5 ) (c i t at i ons o m itted). III . A n alysi s A. Sect i on 240 of the I m m i gr at i on and N at i onal i tyA ctSubpar agr aph ( C ) ( i v) , w hi ch bea r s the hea di ng “Speci al 6 ru le f o r b a ttere d sp o u se s, c h ild re n , an d p a re n ts ,” d o e s n o t ap p ly h e re . See 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 2 9 a(c )(7)(C )(i v ). O r di nar i l y , an al i en mustfi l e a m ot i on t o r eopen w i thi n 90 7 d a y s o f th e e n tr yo f

a f in a l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l

. 8 U .S .C . § 1229a( c) ( 7) ( C ) ( I )

. H ow ever , a di ffe r entt i m e per i od appl i es t o an al i en w ho, l i ke Luntungan, i s or der ed r emoved i n abs ent i a. Such an al i en m ay fi l e a m ot i on t o r eopen w i thi n 180 day s of an or derof r em o v al “i f the al i en demonstr at es thatthe fa i l ur e t o appea rw as beca us e of exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s ” or “ atanyt i m e” i f the al i en demonstr at es thathe di d notr ece i ve r equi r ed not i ce of the proceed i ng s. 8 U
. S
. C
. §§ 12 29 a(b) (5) (C )( I) & (i i ). W hil e t hese pr ovi s i ons cr eat e s peci al i zed rul es for the t i m e per i od dur i ng w hi ch a m o tio n to re o p e n m a yb e f iled b y a n a lien o rd e re d re m o v e d in 10 ( I N A ) , w hi ch governs r emoval pr ocee di ngs , s t at es thatan al i en w ho i s or der ed r emoved m ayfi l e onl yone mot i on t o r eopen: M ot i ons t o r eopen ( A ) I n gener al A n al i en mayfi l e o n e mot i on t o r eopen p ro c e e d in g s u n d e r th is s e c tio n , ex c e p t th a t th is l i m i t at i on s hal l notappl ys o as t o pr eventthe f i l i ng of one m oti on t o r eop en descr i bed in su b p ara g rap h (C )(i v ). 6 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 2 9 a(c )(7). 7a b s e n t i a , th e yd o n o tr e f e rt o t he num ber of m ot i ons thats uch an a lien m a y f

ile. R a th e r, th e g e n e ra l p ro v isio n g o v e rn in g m o tio n s to r eopen, 8 U
. S. C
. § 1229a( c) ( 7) , appl i es , perm i tt i ng o n lyone m ot i on t o r eopen. See al s o 8 U
. S. C
. § 1229a( a) ( 1) ( s t at i ng thati n r emoval 8 pr ocee di ngs , “[a ] n i m m i gr at i o n j u d g e s h a l l c o n d u c tp r o c e e d i n g s for 11 B I A r egul at ions confi r m thatan al i en or der ed r emoved i n abs ent i a mayfi l e onl yone mot i on t o r eopen: O rder enter ed i n ab sent i a or r em ov al proceed i ng s. A n o rd e r o f

re m o v a l en ter e d in a b s e n tia o r in r emov a l p r ocee di ngs pur s uantt o s ect i on 240( b) ( 5) of t he A ct[8 U
. S. C
. § 1229a( b) ( 5) ] m ay b e re s c in d e d o n ly u p o n a m o t i o n t o re o p e n . . . . A n a lien m a

y fil e o n ly o n e m o tio n p u rs u a n t to th is par agr aph

. 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 0 0 3
. 2 3 (b)(4 )(i i) (em p h asis ad d ed ). S e p a ra te s tatu tes a n d re g u latio n s a p p ly to a n a lien w h o is o r d e re d d e p o rte d o r e x c lu d e d

— a s o p p o se d to re m o v e d

— in absenti a. A s the Su prem e C ou rt has expl ai ned , “[r] em ov al i s a new pr ocedur e, ” cr eat ed by the Il l egal I m m i gr at i on R eform and Im m ig ra n t R e s p o n s ib ility A c t o f 1 9 9 6 (I IR IR A ). Jam a v. I m m ig r a tio n a n d

C u s to m s E n

fo r c e m e n t, 543 U
. S. 335, 349 ( 2005)

. A s a r es ul tof I I R I R A , r emova l p r ocee di ngs combi ne “tw o pr evi ous l ydi s t i nctexpul s i on pr ocee di ngs , ‘ deport at i on’ and ‘ excl us i on. ’ ” I

d. A n a lien w h o w o u ld h a v e b e e n p lac e d in 8d ec iding the in ad m issi b il ityo r de p o rt ab il ityo f a n ali en . ”). S e e a lso L a ra -T

o rr e s v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 8 3 F .3 d 9 6 8 , 9 7 3 (9 th 9 C i r . 2004) ( s t at i ng thatno due pr oces s vi ol at i on occur s w her e a pet i t i onerw oul d have be en pl ace d i n deport at i on pr ocee di ngs pr eIIR IR A , b u t i s p lace d in rem o v al pro ce ed ing s p o st- IIR IR A ). See Lopezv. I

. N

. S. , 1 8 4 F
. 3 d 1 0 9 7 , 1 0 9 9 n . 2 (9th C ir

. 10 1999) ( “[Sec t i on] 1252b w as r epea l ed byI I R I R A , w hos e rul es do notappl yt o al i ens . . . w ho w er e i n excl us i on ordeport at i on pr ocee di ngs as of A pr i l 1, 1997. ”) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ; Pub. L
. N o. 1 0 4 -20 8 , 1 1 0 S tat
. 3 0 0 9 -54 6 , 3 0 0 9 -62 5 (sta tin g that IIR IR A ’s amendm ent s t o the I N A do notappl y t o al i ens i n deport at i on p roc ee d ing s p ri o r t o the e ff ec ti v e d ate o f IIR IR A ). 12 d e p o rta tio n o r e x c lu sio n p ro c e e d in g s p rio r to A p ril 1 , 1 9 9 7 , is n o w p la c e d in re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s . Ga l i c k i v . I NS , N o. 02- cv4586, 2003 W L 21781946 ( E
. D
. N
. Y
. A ug. 1, 2003) , at*2. 9 U nd er the st atute that appl i es t o p re- II R IR A proceedi ng s, 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 b , the re is n o lim it o n th e n u m b e r o f m o tio n s to r eopen thatan al i en mayfi l e. I ndeed, the s t atut e does not m e n tio n m o tio n s to re o p e n . See 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1252b ( r epea l ed 1 9 9 6 ). T h e o ld statute co n ti n u es to ap p lyto alien s w h o w ere pl ace d i n pr ocee di ngs befor e A pr i l 1, 1997, the ef fec t i ve dat e of I I RI RA
. 10 T h e B IA h a s als o p ro m u lg a ted re g u latio n s tha t ap p lyto al i ens placed i n p roceedings befo re A pri l 1, 19 97
. U nd er these r egul at i ons , an al i en w ho is o rder ed deport ed i n abs ent i a mayT i t l e 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 00 3. 23 (b) (4) (i i i )( D ) pr ov i des: 11 T h e ti m e and nu m eri cal l i m i t at i on s setforth in par agr aph ( b )( 1) of thi s s ect i on s hal l notappl yt o a m ot i on t o r eopen f

i l ed purs uantt o the pr ovi s i ons of par agr aph ( b) ( 4) ( i i i ) ( A ) of thi s s ect i on. Par agr aph ( b) ( 1) perm i t s onl yone mot i on t o r eopen, and par agr aph ( b) ( 4) ( i i i ) ( A ) r efe r s t o m ot i ons t o r eopen f ol l ow i ng an “or der en tered in ab sen ti a in d ep o rt ati o n p roc ee d ing s.” T h u s, u n d er § 1003. 23( b) ( 4) ( i i i ) ( D ) , the numer i cal l i m i ton m oti o n s t o r eopen d o e s n o t a p p ly to in a b s e n tia d e p o rt a tio n o rd e rs . L u n tu n g a n c o n c e d e s a s m u c h in h is re p ly b ri e f

. 12 See J o sh i v . A sh c ro

ft , 389 F. 3d 732 ( 7th C i r . 2004) ( s t at i ng 13 that8 C
. F. R
. § 1003. 23( b ) ( 4) ( i i ) deal s w i th r emoval pr ocee di ngs as di s t i ngui s hed fr om deport at i on pr ocee di ngs and pr ovi des that “o n ly o n e m o ti o n to reo p en a rem o v al pro ce ed ing m ayb e f il ed ”); A kw a d a v . A sh c ro

ft , N o . 0 2 -2 0 7 8 , 2 0 0 4 W L 2 5 3 8 2 1 2 , a t * 4 n .5 (4 th C ir. N o v . 1 0 , 2 0 0 4 ) (“ T h e re is n o n u m b e r lim it o n a m o tio n to r eopen t o r es ci nd an or der en te r ed i n abs ent i a i n depor tat i on or exc l us i on p ro c e e d in g s if a n a lie n d o e s n o t re c e iv e sta tu to rily pr es cr i bed not i ce. A kw ada, how ever , w as s u bjectt o r em oval 13 fil e a n u n li m it ed n u m b er o f m o ti o n s to reo p en . H o w ev er, 11 thes e r egul at i ons do notapp ly to an al i en, s uch as L untungan, w ho i s pl ace d in p roc ee di ngs aft erA pr i l 1, 1997. A n al i en 12 su c h a s L u n tu n g a n is s u b jec t to th e o n e m o tio n ru le laid o u t in 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 2 9 a(c )(7) an d 8 C
. F
. R
. § 1 0 0 3
. 2 3 (b)(4 )(i i)

. 13pr ocee di ngs , t o w hi ch s tri cterl i m i t s appl y . ”) ( ci t i ng 8 C
. F. R
. §§ 1 0 0 3 .2 3 (b )(4 )(ii) & (iii)(D )); Faj ar do v. I

. N

. S. , 300 F. 3d 1018, 1 0 2 0 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (d istin g u ish in g th e re g u latio n s g o v e rn in g in a b se n tia re m o v a l o rd e rs f ro m th o se g o v e rn in g in a b se n tia d ep o rt ati o n o rde rs). T he footnot e, w hi ch appea r ed i n the s ect i on of the B or ges 14 o p in io n d e v o ted to f

a c ts an d p ro c e d u ra l h isto ry , w a s d e sig n e d o n ly to e x p la in w h yth e IJ a llo w e d a s e c o n d m o tio n to re o p e n . See 402 F .3 d a t 4 0 2 n .5
. 14 I n B or ges v. G onz al es , w e s t at ed i n a footnot e, “[w ] hen an or derof r em oval

is issue d in abs en ti a . . . the re g u lat ion s are m or e l eni entand i tappea r s thatm ul t i pl e mot i ons t o r eopen may be fi l ed bythe al i en . ” 402 F. 3d 398, 402 n. 5 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( emphasi s added) ( ci t i ng Sa ak i a n v . I NS , 25 2 F
. 3d 21 , 25 (1st C i r . 2001) ; 8 C
. F. R
. § 1003. 23( b) ( 4) ( i i i ) ( D ) )

. A s the for egoi ng di s cus s i on demonstr at e s , th i s s t a t e me n ti s ques t i onabl e: A n al i en m aynotfi l e mul t i pl e mot i ons t o r eopen an i n abs ent i a orde rof r emoval , as di s t ingui s hed fr om an i n abs ent i a or derof d ep or t at i on. M or eover , the B orges foo tno t e i s dict a, a n d it ad d ress es an i s s ue notcentr al t o the hol di ng i n thatcas e. 14 D ecl i ning t o fol l ow the B orges fo o tno te, w e h o ld tha t un d er 8 U
. S. C
. § 1229a( c) ( 7) and 8 C
. F. R
. § 1003. 23( b) ( 4) ( i i ) , an al i en or der ed r emoved i n abs ent i a m ay fi l e onl yone mot i on t o r eopen. B. L untungan ar gues thatal though the I N A perm i t s butone m o tio n to re o p e n , th e n u m e ric a l li m it sh o u ld b e e q u itab lyT he N i nth C i r cui t“r ecogni zes equi table t ol l i ng of 15 deadl i nes and numer i cal l i m i t s on m ot i ons t o r eopen orr econs i der du ri ng peri od s w hen a peti t i on er i s preven t ed fr om fi l i ng becau se of dec ept i on, fr aud, orerr or , as l ong as the pet i t i oneract s w i th due 15 “t ol l ed, ” all o w i ng hi m t o fi l e mul t i pl e mot i ons t o r eopen. St r i ct l ydefi ned, equi t abl e t ol l i ng i s “[t ] he doc tr ine thatthe sta tu te o f lim itatio n s w ill n o t b a r a c laim if th e p lain tiff

, d e sp ite di l i genteff

or t s , did n o t di s coverthe i nj uryunt i l aft erthe l i m i t at i ons peri o d had expi r ed. ” B lack’s Law D i ct i onar y 579 (8th ed

. 20 04 ). E qu i t able t oll i ng of st atutes of li m i t at i on s has a v e n e ra b le h is to ry. See H olm ber g v. A r m br echt , 327 U
. S. 392, 3 9 7 (1 9 4 6 ) (s tatin g th a t in c a se s o f f ra u d , eq u itab le to lli n g “ is rea d into ev eryfe d era l st atute o f li m it ati o n ”); B o r g e s , 402 F. 3d at406 ( di s cus s i ng the “ol d chanc eryrul e” thata s t atut e of lim ita tio n s w ill b e to lle d f o r f ra u d ). I n r ece ntcas es , w e have appl i ed equi t abl e t ol l i ng t o the t i m e per i ods dur i ng w hi ch an al i en m ay fi l e a m ot i on t o r eopen. A s d is c u s s e d a b o v e , s ee s upr a not e 7, an al i en or der ed r emoved i n abs ent i a has 180 day s t o fi l e a m ot i on t o r eopen a r gui ng that h e fa il ed to app ea r d u e t o ex ce p ti o n al circu m stan ce s . See 8 U .S .C . 1 2 2 9 a (b )(5 )(C )(I). W e h a v e h e ld th a t th is tim e p e rio d is su b ject t o eq u it ab le t o ll ing

. S ee Borge s , 402 F. 3d at406; Mahm ood v. G onz al es , 4 2 7 F .3 d 2 4 8 , 2 4 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e have not i s s ued a pr ece dent i al opi ni on d eci di ng w h ethe r n u m e ric a l lim its o n m o tio n s to re o p e n m a yb e e q u itab ly t ol l ed, and w e not e that other ci r cui t s have s t at ed diff erent v ie w s o n th e is s u e . E v e n a s s u m in g , ar guendo , thatth e one 15d ilig e n c e in d is c o v e ri n g th e d e c e p tio n , f ra u d , o r e rr o r.” I t u r r i ba r r i a v . I

NS , 321 F. 3d 889, 897 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( ci t at i ons o m itt e d ); s e e a l

s o Va r e la v . I

NS , 2 0 4 F
. 3 d 1 2 3 7 , 1 2 4 0 (9 th C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ); Da v i e s v . I

NS , N o . 0 0 -17 7 3 , 2 0 0 1 W L 6 0 8 9 8 2 (4 th C ir

. Ju n e 5 , 2 0 0 1 ) (allo w in g e q u itab le to lli n g ). T h e S ix th C ir c u it, h o w e v e r, se e m s d o u b tf

u l th a t th e n u m e ric a l li m it m a yb e e q u itab ly to lled a n d h a s “ n e v e r h e ld th a t eq u itab le to lli n g a p p lies to n um er i cal l i m i t at i ons on m ot i ons t o r eopen. ” S e n e v . Gon z al es , N o . 0 4 -37 9 4 , 2 0 0 6 W L 9 9 4 1 7 3 , at *4 (6th C ir

. A p r. 1 4 , 2 0 0 6 ). 16 m ot i on l im it i s s ubj ectt o equi t abl e t ol l i ng, w e hol d that e q u ita b le to llin g d o e s n o t a p p ly h e re . L untungan al l eges thathi s first couns el , w ho fi l ed the f i r s t mot i o n t o r e o p e n , was i n e f f e c t i v e . Und e r th e d oct r i ne of equi t abl e t ol l i ng, L untungan m i ght be ent i t l ed t o fi l e a second m ot i on. B ut i n eff

ect , L untungan al r eadyr ece i ved thi s form of re lief: L u n tu n g a n ’s n e w c o u n se l f ile d a s e c o n d m o tio n to re o p e n , w h ich th e IJ re jec ted b e c a u se L u n tu n g a n f a il e d to compl y w i th the Lozada r equi r ement s . O nl yw hen Luntungan fi l ed h i s th i r d m o tio n d id th e IJ d e n yit a s n u m e ri c a lly b a rr e d

. T o d em o n stra te that the IJ e rred in d en y ing h is th ir d m ot i on t o r eopen a s num er i cal l ybarr ed, L untungan m us ts how that eq u it ab le co n side rati o n s sh o u ld p erm ith im to f il e the thir d m oti on . T his show i ng w ou l d h ave to be b ased on un fai rness s urr ound ing t he s econd mot i on t o r eopen. A ft eral l , i f the sec o n d m o ti o n g av e L u n tun g an a fa ir ch an ce to b e h ea rd, th ere is n o e q u ita b le re a s o n to p e rm it a th ir d m o tio n .B eca us e w e conc l ude thatthe one mot i on rul e di s pos es of 16 this case, w e do no t reach L un tun gan ’s argum ent that h e is a lso ent i t l ed t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng of the 180- dayw i ndow i n w h i ch an al i en or der ed r emoved i n abs ent i a mustfi l e a mot i on t o r eo p en. See 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 2 2 9 a(b )(5)(C )(I ). 17 L untungan does not al l ege thatthe att orneyw ho fi l ed the s econd mot i on defr auded hi m or otherw i s e pr ovi ded i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance . C ons equent l y , w e conc l ude thatthe s econd mot i on gave Luntungan a f

ai rchanc e t o be hea r d. E q u ityr equi r es n o th i n g mo r e , a n d we d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 16