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

statuteappealmotion
statutemotionwill

Related Cases

Torentino; U.S. v.
View Case »
Teague v. Lane
View Case »
Dielmann v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Bedolla-Zarate v. Sessions
View Case »
Arizona v. Youngblood
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Dwumaah v. AG of the United States

Facts

Kwame Dwumaah, a citizen of Ghana, was deemed removable for falsely representing himself as a U.S. citizen in student-loan applications. He filed multiple motions to reopen his case, claiming he had retracted his false representations and that his previous counsel had been ineffective for not raising this argument. The BIA denied his motions, and Dwumaah subsequently filed a petition for review after his eighth motion was denied as time- and number-barred.

Dwumaah was deemed removable for falsely representing himself to be a United States citizen in student-loan applications. See 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(3)(D)(i); Dwumaah v. AG of the United States, 609 F.3d 586, 589 (3d Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (denying petition for review challenging removal order). Thereafter, Dwumaah filed various motions to reopen, arguing that he had retracted his prior false representations by checking a box on a 1999 application stating that he was not a citizen, which made him non-removable under 1227(a)(3)(D)(i), and that counsel in the removal proceedings performed ineffectively by failing to raise the retraction argument.

Issue

Whether the BIA correctly denied Dwumaah's eighth motion to reopen his removal proceedings as time-barred and whether he was entitled to equitable tolling of the filing deadline.

Whether the BIA correctly denied Dwumaah's eighth motion to reopen his removal proceedings as time-barred and whether he was entitled to equitable tolling of the filing deadline.

Rule

Under 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(A), a noncitizen may file only one motion to reopen within 90 days of the final administrative decision. The time limit for filing a motion to reopen is subject to equitable tolling if the petitioner demonstrates due diligence.

A noncitizen may file only one motion to reopen and must do so within 90 days of the date of the final administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i). The motion to reopen at issue here is Dwumaah's eighth.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by examining the timeline of Dwumaah's filings and determined that his eighth motion to reopen was filed well beyond the 90-day limit established by statute. The court noted that Dwumaah's delay of over ten years in presenting his retraction claim did not demonstrate the requisite diligence for equitable tolling. As a result, the BIA's denial of the motion was upheld.

The court applied the rule by examining the timeline of Dwumaah's filings and determined that his eighth motion to reopen was filed well beyond the 90-day limit established by statute. The court noted that Dwumaah's delay of over ten years in presenting his retraction claim did not demonstrate the requisite diligence for equitable tolling.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the BIA's decision, denying Dwumaah's petition for review due to the time-bar on his motion to reopen.

Accordingly, we will deny the petition for review.

Who won?

The Board of Immigration Appeals prevailed in the case as the court upheld its decision to deny Dwumaah's motion to reopen based on the time-bar and lack of diligence.

The BIA correctly determined that Dwumaah's motion to reopen was time- and number-barred.

You must be