Opinion ID: 177062
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Late Motions for Extensions of Time

Text: According to Kuzmin, in the matter of Zheng v. Mukasey, No. 07-3741-ag, he did not receive the scheduling order from the Court. Immediately upon becoming aware of the order­ three days after the brief due date - Kuzmin filed a motion for an extension of time. The Court granted the motion. In the case of Weng v. Mukasey, No. 07-4883-ag, Kuzmin timely prepared a request for a 30-day-extension of time, but the letter was never submitted to the Court, due to a clerical error by his staff. Upon discovering three days after the brief due date that the request for an extension of time had not been mailed, Kuzmin promptly moved to modify the briefing schedule. The motion was granted Zheng v. Mukasey, No. 07-5379-ag, involved two cases that had been consolidated one, a direct appeal from the BIA and the other, a subsequent appeal of a motion for reconsideration before the BIA. After the consolidation, Kuzmin expected the Court to issue a new scheduling order for the combined cases. No such order was issued, and Kuzmin missed the briefing date • 22992333v3 7 • that had been set in the direct appeal. Four months later, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, and Kuzmin submitted a timely brief in response. In the case of Li v. Mukasey, No. 07-5380-ag, Kuzmin moved to modify the briefing schedule on the date that petitioner's brief was due. The Court granted only a one~week extension of time, but Kuzmin did not receive the order until several days after the week had expired. In fact, he had actually filed the brief one day after the new due date, without knowledge of the Court's order. Nevertheless, upon receiving the order, Kuzmin filed a motion for leave to file a late brief after-the-fact. The Court granted the motion.