Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneyappealhearingmotionasylum
attorneyappealhearingmotionasylum

Related Cases

Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Shah v. Mukasey
View Case »
Gurung v. Ashcroft
View Case »
Gonzalez-Villalobos; U.S. v.
View Case »
Auguste v. Reno
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Bead v. Holder

Facts

Bead, a native and citizen of Liberia, entered the United States without inspection and filed for asylum in April 2003. He was placed in removal proceedings in September 2003 and appeared without counsel at two initial hearings. After failing to provide required biometric information, an Immigration Judge found that he had abandoned his asylum application in February 2007 and ordered him removed. Bead did not appeal this decision and later filed a motion to reopen in February 2010, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.

Bead, a native and citizen of Liberia, entered the United States without inspection and filed for asylum in April 2003. He was placed in removal proceedings in September 2003 and appeared without counsel at two initial hearings. After failing to provide required biometric information, an Immigration Judge found that he had abandoned his asylum application in February 2007 and ordered him removed. Bead did not appeal this decision and later filed a motion to reopen in February 2010, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issue

Whether the BIA erred in denying Bead's motion to reopen his removal proceedings as untimely.

Whether the BIA erred in denying Bead's motion to reopen his removal proceedings as untimely.

Rule

A motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of the final administrative decision unless certain exceptions apply. The BIA has broad discretion in deciding motions to reopen and must be shown to have committed an error of law or acted arbitrarily.

A motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of the final administrative decision unless certain exceptions apply. The BIA has broad discretion in deciding motions to reopen and must be shown to have committed an error of law or acted arbitrarily.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by examining Bead's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and the timeliness of his motion to reopen. It noted that Bead had not demonstrated due diligence in pursuing his case, as he waited almost five years to contact a new attorney after his merits hearing and did not adequately explain the delays in filing his motion.

The court applied the rule by examining Bead's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and the timeliness of his motion to reopen. It noted that Bead had not demonstrated due diligence in pursuing his case, as he waited almost five years to contact a new attorney after his merits hearing and did not adequately explain the delays in filing his motion.

Conclusion

The court denied the petition for review, agreeing with the BIA that Bead's motion to reopen was untimely.

The court denied the petition for review, agreeing with the BIA that Bead's motion to reopen was untimely.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's decision that Bead's motion to reopen was untimely and that he had not shown due diligence.

The government prevailed in the case because the court upheld the BIA's decision that Bead's motion to reopen was untimely and that he had not shown due diligence.

You must be