Opinion ID: 3032138
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Deadline for Filing a Motion to Reopen under

Text: § 203(c) Section 203(c) does not identify by date the deadline for filing a motion to reopen deportation or removal proceedings. Instead, the statute states: The Attorney General shall designate a specific time period in which all such motions to reopen are required to be filed. The period shall begin not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act and shall extend for a period not to exceed 240 days. NACARA § 203(c). By regulation, the Attorney General set the deadline at September 11, 1998. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(e)(1) (2004) (formerly 8 C.F.R. § 3.43(e)(1) (2002)).3 (iii) has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately following the commission of an act, or the assumption of a status, constituting a ground for removal; (iv) has been a person of good moral character during such period; and (v) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien or to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. See NACARA § 203(b). 3 An application for special rule cancellation of removal, to accompany the motion to reopen, must have been submitted no later than November 18, 1999. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.43(e)(2) (formerly 8 C.F.R. § 3.43(e)(2) (2004)). ALBILLO-DELEON v. GONZALES 6607 B. Albillo-DeLeon’s Motion to Reopen Proceedings On September 10, 1998, Albillo-DeLeon retained Jovel Mendez, who he believed to be an attorney, to file on his behalf a motion to reopen proceedings pursuant to section 203(c). After the filing deadline passed, Albillo-DeLeon did not receive any correspondence from the Immigration Court or from Mendez. He followed-up with Mendez, requesting information regarding the status of his motion. Mendez assured Albillo-DeLeon that the motion had been filed. Nevertheless, rather than provide Albillo-DeLeon with specific information regarding the status of Albillo-DeLeon’s motion, Mendez demanded additional money to investigate further. Albillo-DeLeon refused to pay and became suspicious of Mendez. In September 1999, Albillo-DeLeon went to the Immigration Court, where a court clerk informed him that the court had no record of Albillo-DeLeon’s motion. The clerk directed Albillo-DeLeon to file a request under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) to learn definitively the status of his motion. Per the clerk’s instructions, Albillo-DeLeon filed a FOIA request. On April 3, 2000, Albillo-DeLeon received a copy of his court file and learned that Mendez never filed the motion. Albillo-DeLeon also learned for the first time that Mendez was not an attorney but an immigration consultant and notario.4 On August 2, 2000, Albillo-DeLeon retained new counsel and successfully filed a motion to reopen with the BIA. In his motion, Albillo-DeLeon requested that the time limitation for filing his motion be equitably tolled because of ineffective 4 Because Mendez was a notario and not a licensed attorney, AlbilloDeLeon did not file a formal complaint with the California State Bar. However, Albillo-DeLeon did file a complaint with the INS to notify it of Mendez’s fraudulent misrepresentations. 6608 ALBILLO-DELEON v. GONZALES assistance of counsel. Albillo-DeLeon explained that he failed to meet the September 11, 1998, filing deadline only because he believed Mendez’s representations that he was an attorney and that he would timely file Albillo-DeLeon’s motion to reopen. On May 10, 2001, the IJ denied the motion as untimely and refused to equitably toll the deadline. AlbilloDeLeon appealed the denial to the BIA. On January 31, 2002, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion. This appeal followed.