Opinion ID: 786787
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: failure to raise this claim before the district court

Text: 22 The fact that Pichardo did not raise his Dalton claim before the district court until his motion for reconsideration does not defeat his claim on appeal. Although generally this Court will not consider an argument on appeal that was raised for the first time below in a motion for reconsideration[,][t]his `waiver' rule is one of prudence ... and [is] not jurisdictional. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors of Color Tile, Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, LLP, 322 F.3d 147, 159 (2d Cir.2003). This Court retains broad discretion to consider issues not timely raised below. Id. (citations and quotations omitted). This is especially the case where the issues not addressed below involved purely legal questions. J.C. v. Regional School Dist. 10, Bd. of Educ., 278 F.3d 119, 125 (2d Cir.2002). Here, it is a pure question of law whether Pichardo's DUI convictions can be a ground for deportation following this court's holding in Dalton. There are no facts in dispute regarding this issue, and the record on appeal adequately supports our conclusions. Accordingly, we choose to exercise our discretion to consider legal claims raised for the first time in Pichardo's motion for reconsideration.