Court Opinion

ID: 9958044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-06 14:00:41.278915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:43.606107
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-60330           Document: 52-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/05/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________
                                                                            United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit
                                   No. 23-60330
                                 Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                 ____________                                     April 5, 2024
                                                                              Lyle W. Cayce
Maikel M. Valdes Amaro,                                                            Clerk

                                                                              Petitioner,

                                         versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                            Respondent.
                  ______________________________

                     Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals
                           Agency No. A200 019 907
                  ______________________________

Before Jolly, Engelhardt, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Maikel M. Valdes Amaro, a native and citizen of Cuba, petitions for
review of a decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying his request for
equitable tolling and denying as untimely his motion to reopen his
immigration proceedings. In his motion, he argued that his conviction under
Texas Penal Code § 71.02 no longer qualified as a crime involving moral

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-60330        Document: 52-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/05/2024

                                 No. 23-60330

turpitude (CIMT) in light of an intervening decision by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals and, therefore, he was not removable.
       Valdes Amaro does not challenge the IJ’s factual findings. Instead, he
renews his argument that he was entitled to equitable tolling for the period
preceding his discovery of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision, he
diligently filed his motion within 90 days of learning of the change of law that
supported his motion, and the IJ erred in requiring him to establish due
diligence from entry of his final order of removal until he filed his motion. As
support, he cites this court’s decision in Gonzalez-Cantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d
302 (5th Cir. 2017). Alternatively, he argues that his affidavit demonstrated
that he acted with reasonable diligence during that time period and that
extraordinary family circumstances and responsibilities impeded his ability
to timely file his motion. Because these issues entail application of a legal
standard to undisputed facts, we have jurisdiction to address them. See
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062, 1068 (2020); Londono-Gonzales v.
Barr, 978 F.3d 965, 967 (5th Cir. 2020); see also Flores-Moreno v. Barr, 971
F.3d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 2020).
       A motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days of the order of
removal while a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of that order.
§ 1229a(c)(6)(B), (c)(7)(C)(i). Both time limitations are subject to equitable
tolling. See Gonzalez Hernandez v. Garland, 9 F.4th 278, 284-87 (5th Cir.
2021) (reconsideration); Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 337, 344 (5th Cir.
2016) (reopening). The distinction is not outcome determinative in this case
for the reasons set out below, but Valdes Amaro’s motion is properly treated
as one to reconsider under Gonzales Hernandez rather than a motion to
reopen because he sought relief based on an intervening legal decision. See
id.; 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C), (c)(7)(B).

                                       2
Case: 23-60330        Document: 52-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 04/05/2024

                                  No. 23-60330

       An alien is entitled to equitable tolling if he shows, “(1) that he has
been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary
circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.” Mejia v. Barr,
952 F.3d 255, 259 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). The diligence element “requires the litigant to establish that he
pursued his rights with reasonable diligence, not maximum feasible
diligence.” Flores-Moreno, 971 F.3d at 545 (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). “The party seeking equitable tolling has the burden of
proof.” Mejia, 952 F.3d at 258.
       When the BIA affirms the IJ’s decision without opinion, as it did here,
we review the IJ’s decision. See Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir.
2003). We review the denial of a motion to reconsider or reopen “under a
highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Ovalles v. Rosen, 984 F.3d
1120, 1123 (5th Cir. 2021) (reopening) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted); Lowe v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 713, 715 (5th Cir. 2017)
(reconsideration).
       Valdes Amaro’s reliance Gonzalez-Cantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302
(5th Cir. 2017), is misplaced. As this court recognized in subsequent cases,
Gonzalez-Cantu did not hold that a party requesting equitable tolling is
necessarily entitled to tolling up until the time he learns of the change in law
that provides grounds for filing a motion to reopen or reconsider; rather, he
may be granted tolling up to that date if he provides sufficient evidence to
support his request. See Angeles v. Garland, No. 18-60715, 2021 WL 6101400,
1 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2021) (unpublished); Solis-Rivera v. Barr, 789 F. App’x
447, 448 (5th Cir. 2020); Rubio Amaya v. Barr, 772 F. App’x 216, 217 (5th
Cir. 2019). Moreover, we have previously recognized that the actions that a
party took before and after extraordinary circumstances that he alleged
prevented him from timely filing “may indicate whether he was diligent

                                       3
Case: 23-60330       Document: 52-1       Page: 4    Date Filed: 04/05/2024

                                 No. 23-60330

overall.” Jackson v. Davis, 933 F.3d 408, 411 (5th Cir. 2019) (28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 case).
       The IJ’s determination that Valdes Amaro’s vague affidavit failed to
establish that he was diligent and that his family responsibilities constituted
an extraordinary circumstance was not “capricious, racially invidious, utterly
without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is
arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.”
Gonzalez Hernandez, 9 F.4th at 283. In other cases where the equitable
tolling applicant has cited incorrect legal advice as a reason for his untimely
filing, this court has considered how much time elapsed between the date that
the incorrect advice was conveyed and the date that the applicant next sought
legal advice from a different attorney. See, e.g, Nyabwari v. Garland, No.
21-60479, 2022 WL 7409252, 1 (5th Cir. Oct. 13, 2022) (unpublished) (17
months), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 2565 (2023); Flores-Moreno, 971 F.3d at 545
(three years); Deras-Leon v. Barr, 841 F. App’x 642, 645 (5th Cir. 2020) (28
months); Michael v. Barr, 830 F. App’x 732, 735 (5th Cir. 2020) (11 months).
       The IJ did not abuse her discretion by denying Valdes Amaro’s
request for equitable tolling. See Ovalles, 984 F.3d at 1123; Lowe, 872 F.3d at
715. Because the denial of equitable tolling is dispositive, we do not address
whether § 71.02 qualifies as a CIMT. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24,
25 (1976) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they
reach”).
       Valdes Amaro’s petition for review is DENIED.

                                      4