Opinion ID: 3065147
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The BIA’s Reasonable Interpretation of Its

Text: Regulations in Liadov is Entitled to Deference [3] Although Irigoyen-Briones asserts that the BIA’s reading of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b) in Liadov is foreclosed by this court’s conflicting construction in Oh, Supreme Court precedent requires us to give deference to the BIA’s interpretation in this instance. Under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation may be entitled to substantial deference from a reviewing court. See Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 255 (2006). To determine whether Auer deference applies, we conduct a two-step inquiry. First, “Auer deference is warranted only when the language of the regulation is ambiguous”; otherwise, “[t]o defer to the agency’s position would be to permit the agency, under the guise of interpreting a regulation, to create de facto 4 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(c) states: Jurisdiction by certification. The Commissioner, or any duly authorized officer of the Service, an Immigration Judge, or the Board may in any case arising under paragraph (b) of this section certify such case to the Board. The Board in its discretion may review any such case by certification without regard to the provisions of [8 C.F.R.] § 1003.7 if it determines that the parties have already been given a fair opportunity to make representations before the Board regarding the case, including the opportunity request oral argument and to submit a brief. IRIGOYEN-BRIONES v. HOLDER 13983 a new regulation.” Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 588 (2000). Second, if the regulation is ambiguous, then the agency’s “interpretation of it is . . . controlling unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.” Auer, 519 U.S. at 461 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Under this standard, we defer to the agency’s interpretation of its regulation unless an “ ‘alternative reading is compelled by the regulation’s plain language or by other indications of the [agency’s] intent at the time of the regulation’s promulgation.’ ” Bassiri v. Xerox Corp., 463 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalala, 512 U.S. 504, 512 (1994) (emphasis added) (alteration in original)). [4] Applying these principles here, we hold that the plain language of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b) is ambiguous as to whether the BIA may extend the filing deadline. The provision states, in relevant part: The Notice of Appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals of Decision of Immigration Judge . . . shall be filed directly with the Board of Immigration Appeals within 30 calendar days after the stating of an Immigration Judge’s oral decision or the mailing of an Immigration Judge’s written decision. If the final date for filing falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, this appeal time shall be extended to the next business day. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b). As the Oh court noted, this language “says nothing about the BIA’s jurisdiction to consider late filings.” 406 F.3d at 613 n.4. Nor, however, does it say anything about the BIA’s authority to review such filings in “rare circumstances.” Given the regulation’s silence on the issue, neither construction is clearly foreclosed. [5] For the following reasons, we also hold that the BIA’s interpretation of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b) in Liadov is not “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.” See 13984 IRIGOYEN-BRIONES v. HOLDER Auer, 519 U.S. at 461 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). First, the BIA’s interpretation conforms to the wording of the relevant regulations. The word “shall” in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b) indicates a mandatory time frame, and the rest of the provision further indicates only one exception for extensions: “If the final date for filing falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, this appeal time shall be extended to the next business day.” Id. At the same time, related provision 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c) states that “[t]he date of filing of the Notice of Appeal . . . shall be the date the Notice is received by the Board.” (Emphasis added.) Based on the plain language of the regulations, therefore, the BIA in Liadov reasonably concluded that neither a “mailbox” rule—i.e., accepting the mailing date as the filing date—nor a “rare circumstances” exception for late filings, applies. [6] Second, as explained in Liadov, the BIA’s interpretation conforms to the wording of the BIA’s own Practice Manual: The Board of Immigration Appeals Practice Man- ual (“Practice Manual”) . . ., which also addresses the issue of filing appeals, emphasizes the importance of timely filings. It clearly states that an appeal or motion is not deemed filed until it is received by the Board and that the Board does not observe the “mailbox” rule. See [Practice Manual] § 3.1(a)(i), at 31 (July 30, 2004). . . . Moreover, in two places the Practice Manual spe- cifically cautions that use of an overnight delivery service does not mean that failing to meet filing deadlines will be excused. According to § 3.1(a)(iv), “the failure of a courier or overnight delivery service does not excuse parties from meeting filing dead- lines.” [Practice Manual] § 3.1(a)(iv), at 32. In addition, § 3.1(b)(iv) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: IRIGOYEN-BRIONES v. HOLDER 13985 Delays in delivery.—Postal or delivery delays do not affect existing deadlines, nor does the Board excuse untimeliness due to such delays, except in rare circumstances. Parties should anticipate all Post Office and courier delays, whether the filing is made through first class mail, priority mail, or any overnight or other guaranteed delivery service. Liadov, 23 I&N Dec. at 991-92. It is true, as the Oh court noted, that the Practice Manual “acknowledges that in ‘rare circumstances’ the BIA may excuse late filings.” 406 F.3d at 613. However, given that this acknowledgment is consistent with the BIA’s conclusion in Liadov that it may still take untimely cases in “rare” or “extraordinary” circumstances pursuant to its discretionary certification authority under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(c), 23 I&N Dec. at 991, it does not compel an alternative reading of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b) or indicate that the BIA’s interpretation is plainly erroneous. [7] Third, the BIA’s construction sensibly conforms to the purpose of the regulations. As noted in Liadov, “[m]eaningful filing deadlines are as critical to the smooth and fair administration of the Board as they are to the courts, particularly given the extraordinary volume of appeals, motions, and other filings that must be efficiently processed, tracked, and adjudicated.” 23 I&N Dec. at 992. Indeed, in 1996, recognizing the importance of both enforcing such deadlines and simultaneously allowing the parties sufficient time in which to file appeals, the Board by regulation lengthened the period for filing administrative appeals from ten days to thirty days. Id. (citing Executive Office for Immigration Review: Motions and Appeals in Immigration Proceedings, 61 Fed. Reg. 18,900, 18,908 (Apr. 29, 1996) (codified at 8 C.F.R. § 3.38(b) and subsequently recodified at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b))). The BIA in Liadov reasonably found that “this is a fair and generous filing period and one that the parties must take seriously,” 13986 IRIGOYEN-BRIONES v. HOLDER observing that “[t]he filing time was not extended to simply ‘push the window’ of last-minute filings 20 days forward.” Id. Fourth, the BIA’s interpretation comports with the Supreme Court’s approval of the adoption of strict filing deadlines in other contexts. In United States v. Locke, for example, the Court stated: The notion that a filing deadline can be complied with by filing sometime after the deadline falls due is, to say the least, a surprising notion, and it is a notion without limiting principle. If 1-day late filings are acceptable, 10-day late filings might be equally acceptable, and so on in a cascade of exceptions that would engulf the rule erected by the filing deadline; yet regardless of where the cutoff line is set, some individuals will always fall just on the other side of it. Filing deadlines, like statutes of limitations, necessarily operate harshly and arbitrarily with respect to individuals who fall just on the other side of them, but if the concept of a filing deadline is to have any content, the deadline must be enforced. “Any less rigid standard would risk encouraging a lax attitude toward filing dates[.]” A filing deadline cannot be complied with, substantially or otherwise, by filing late—even by one day. 471 U.S. 84, 101 (1985) (quoting United States v. Boyle, 469 U.S. 241, 249 (1985)). In addition, the Court recently clarified that “the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement,” and that “[b]ecause th[e] Court has no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements, use of the ‘unique circumstances’ doctrine is illegitimate.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Finally, as the Eighth Circuit noted in similarly deferring to the BIA’s interpretation in Liadov as a “permissible interpreIRIGOYEN-BRIONES v. HOLDER 13987 tation” of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b), “[t]he BIA has declared for more than fifty years that the regulation prescribing the time within which an administrative appeal must be filed . . . is mandatory and may not be extended by the BIA.” Liadov v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 1003, 1009 (8th Cir. 2008); see, e.g., In re Dirphys, 3 I&N Dec. 223, 224 (BIA 1948) (“There is no provision in the pertinent regulation . . . which gives . . . this Board . . . power to extend time within which an appeal must be filed.”); In re G—Z—, 5 I&N Dec. 295, 295 (BIA 1953) (“We rule that under the applicable regulations, . . . there is no authority to extend the time for filing an appeal.”); In re Escobar, 18 I&N Dec. 412, 413 (BIA 1983) (acknowledging that “failure to [timely file an appeal] results in the decision becoming administratively final” such that the BIA “lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal”). Indeed, “[c]onfirming this longstanding agency rule, the Attorney General ruled in 2002 that ‘[t]his deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional.’ ” Liadov v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d at 1007 (quoting In re Jean, 23 I&N Dec. 373, 378 (BIA 2002) (alterations in original)). [8] Accordingly, because 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b) is ambiguous regarding the BIA’s jurisdiction to consider late filings, and because the BIA’s interpretation in Liadov is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the language of the regulation, we must give Auer deference to the BIA’s construction that the agency lacks “authority to extend the appeal time” under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b), but may “certify a case to itself” where it presents “rare” and “exceptional” circumstances under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(c).5 See Liadov, 23 I&N Dec. at 993. We also 5 Irigoyen-Briones challenges only the BIA’s holding that it lacks jurisdiction to extend an appeal filing deadline under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b); he does not challenge the BIA’s discretionary decision that “[s]hort delays in delivery are to be expected, and they do not warrant consideration of an untimely appeal on certification” under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(c). As a result, he has waived that issue on appeal. See Collins v. City of San Diego, 841 F.2d 337, 339 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting that “[i]t is well established in this Circuit that claims which are not addressed in the appellant’s brief are deemed abandoned”). Moreover, even if Irigoyen-Briones had not waived the certification issue, we lack jurisdiction to consider it under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). 13988 IRIGOYEN-BRIONES v. HOLDER hold that, under Auer and its progeny, to the extent Oh was grounded in the ambiguous language of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b), the BIA’s reasonable discretionary interpretation of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b) in Liadov has “effectively overruled” the prior, contrary holding in Oh. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (stating that although a three-judge panel is usually bound by the opinion of a prior three-judge panel, this court has recognized an exception where “the reasoning or theory of [this court’s] prior circuit authority is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority,” such that the prior three-judge panel’s decision has been “effectively over- ruled”); cf. Gonzalez v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 508 F.3d 1227, 1236 n.7 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Miller, 335 F.3d at 893, for the proposition that “[t]he Supreme Court’s opinions in Chevron [U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984),] and [Nat’l Cable & Telecomm. Ass’n v.] Brand X [Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005),] together hold that to the extent that [Perez-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 783 (9th Cir. 2004)] was grounded in the ambiguous language of [a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act], the BIA’s reasonable discretionary construction of the statute in [In re TorresGarcia, 23 I&N Dec. 866 (BIA 2006)] has ‘effectively overruled’ contrary holdings in [Perez-Gonzalez]”).