Dillon

Dillon v. Schiltgen

Good Law
130 F. App'x 180
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 5, 2005No. 03-57136; D.C. No. CV-01-07239-SJOCalifornia470 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Dillon appeals from the district court’s denial of his second habeas petition. He argues that his second habeas petition *181 should be granted because the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) erred in denying as untimely his third motion to reopen, which asked for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). He explains that this relief was not made available until March 22,1999 while he was in detention and that the 90-day period for filing motions to reopen to seek relief under CAT expired before he was released. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.18 (b)(2). He contends that, while in detention, he had inadequate access to legal material and that therefore the deadline to file his motion to reopen should have been tolled while he was in custody. However, we need not decide whether he is entitled to equitable tolling or whether he raised this issue adequately before the agency because, even assuming that CAT’s deadline was tolled during his detention, his motion would still have been untimely. Dillon was released on January 25, 2000, and, if the deadline had been tolled during his detention, he would have had until April 24, 2000 to file his motion to reopen. However, he…

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.