Macias

Macias v. Ashcroft

Good Law
73 F. App'x 247
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 12, 2003No. 02-72581; Agency No. A75-504-805California379 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

A motion to reopen a final administrative order of removal must be filed within 90 days of the order. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C)(i). Petitioner Imelda de Luna Macias filed her motion to reopen 95 days after the BIA summarily dismissed her appeal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied the motion as untimely, refusing to equitably toll the 90-day statute of limitation. We agree that equitable tolling is unavailable to Macias and deny her petition for review.

“This court ... recognizes equitable tolling of deadlines and numerical limits on motions to reopen ... during periods when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering the deception, fraud, or error.” Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (citations omitted). The only act of “deception, fraud, or error” in this case was the failure of Macias’s “accredited representative” to file an appellate brief before the BIA. Macias knew or should have known that her accredited representative did not file an appellate brief prior to meeting with her current counsel on January 22, 2002 because the BIA’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.