Opinion ID: 2645266
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: General Principles for Motions to Reopen

Text: The BIA may grant an alien’s motion to reopen if the alien presents new evidence that is material and could not have been discovered or presented at the removal hearing. INA § 240(c)(7)(C)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). Generally, an alien can file only one motion to reopen and must do so within ninety days of the final order of removal. Id. § 240(c)(7)(A), (C)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i). These time and numerical limits do not apply, however, if the alien can show “changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality.” Id. § 240(c)(7)(C)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Because the ninety-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen is a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule, it is subject to equitable tolling. AvilaSantoyo v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 713 F.3d 1357, 1359-64 (11th Cir. 2013) (en banc). To prevail in an equitable tolling claim, the petitioner must show “(1) that he ha[d] been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstances stood in his way.” Id. at 1363 n.5. An ineffective assistance claim may serve as 10 Case: 13-11916 Date Filed: 12/09/2013 Page: 11 of 15 the basis for both equitable tolling and the merits of a motion to reopen. RuizTurcios v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 717 F.3d 847, 851 (11th Cir. 2013).2 Here, Zheng did not file her motion to reopen until seven years after entry of her final order of removal. Thus, unless Zheng showed either changed country conditions or extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling, her motion to reopen was time-barred under INA § 240(c)(7)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C). For the reasons that follow, we conclude we lack jurisdiction to review whether Zheng showed changed country conditions and affirm the BIA’s finding that Zheng did not diligently pursue her ineffective assistance claim such that she is entitled to equitable tolling.