Opinion ID: 4521977
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Time and Number Bar

Text: We review the denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings for an abuse of discretion. Jiang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009). The BIA abuses its discretion when it exercises its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Id. “The moving party bears a heavy burden, as motions to reopen are disfavored, especially in removal proceedings.” Zhang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 572 F.3d 1316, 1319 (11th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations omitted). Here, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Anuforo’s second motion to reopen as time-barred and number-barred. “A petitioner may file one, and only one motion for reopening of an order of removal.” Lin, 881 F.3d at 872; see also INA § 204(c)(7)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A). And “[a] motion to reopen must be made within 90 days of the removal order’s entry, or 180 days after entry of an order of removal entered in absentia where failure to appear was because of exceptional 4 Case: 19-11755 Date Filed: 04/02/2020 Page: 5 of 8 circumstances.” Lin, 881 F.3d at 872 (quotations marks omitted); see also INA § 240(c)(7)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). It is undisputed that the instant motion to reopen was Anuforo’s second and that the motion was not filed until September 2018, years after the entry of the IJ’s removal order in 2010, the BIA’s dismissal of Anuforo’s appeal from that order in 2011, and the BIA’s denial of Anuforo’s first motion to reopen in 2011. Moreover, while the 90-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen is a claimprocessing rule subject to equitable tolling, Anuforo has failed to show he is entitled to any such tolling. See Lin, 881 F.3d at 872 (stating that equitable tolling generally requires the litigant show: (1) he has been pursuing his rights diligently; and (2) there were extraordinary circumstances preventing him from meeting the deadline). In any case, even assuming he was entitled to equitable tolling as to the time bar, Anuforo’s second motion to reopen would remain number-barred. See id. at 872; see also INA § 240(c)(7)(A), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A). Accordingly, we deny Anuforo’s petition to the extent he argues the BIA abused its discretion in determining his motion to reopen was statutorily barred. 5 Case: 19-11755 Date Filed: 04/02/2020 Page: 6 of 8