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

motion

Related Cases

Goulart v. Garland

Facts

Goulart was removed from the United States in 2013 after being convicted of burglary, which the BIA classified as a crime of violence. In 2018, he learned of a Supreme Court decision that potentially invalidated the basis for his removal. He filed a motion for reconsideration more than five years after his removal, claiming that the change in law made him eligible for relief.

In his motion, Goulart failed to present any evidence suggesting that he diligently pursued his rights during the time between 2013, when he was removed, and 2018, when he learned of Sessions v. Dimaya and filed the motion to reconsider.

Issue

Did the BIA err in denying Goulart's motion for reconsideration as untimely and in denying equitable tolling?

Rule

A motion to reconsider a final order of removal must be filed within thirty days, but the deadline can be subject to equitable tolling if the petitioner can show due diligence in discovering the grounds for the motion.

A motion to reconsider a final order of removal generally must be filed within thirty days of the date of entry of the order. The filing deadline is subject to equitable tolling '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.'

Analysis

The court applied the rule by examining whether Goulart had acted with due diligence in pursuing his rights after his removal. It noted that Goulart failed to present evidence of any efforts to seek relief during the years between his removal and the Supreme Court's decision, which undermined his claim for equitable tolling.

Like the petitioner in Lona, Goulart failed to present any evidence suggesting that he diligently pursued relief during the years between his removal and the relevant change in law. Goulart was removed in 2013, after the BIA determined that his prior conviction was a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. 16(b).

Conclusion

The court concluded that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Goulart's petition for reconsideration, affirming the BIA's decision.

Therefore, there is no basis to conclude that the BIA abused its discretion in denying Goulart's claim for equitable tolling.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court found that Goulart did not demonstrate the necessary diligence to warrant equitable tolling.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Sabir v. Gonzales

Encarnacion-Galvez; U.S. v.

Matacua v. Frank

Gilman v. Department of Homeland Security

Dokic v. Immigration and Naturalization Service