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

jurisdictionprecedentmotionoverruled
jurisdictionprecedentmotionoverruled

Related Cases

Geneme v. Holder
View Case »
Mau v. Chertoff
View Case »
Ayala-Ayala; U.S. v.
View Case »
Garcia-Arce v. Barr
View Case »
Jutus v. Holder
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Ruiz-Turcios v. AG

Facts

Darwin Gilberto Ruiz-Turcios, a native of Honduras, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision denying his third motion to reopen his removal proceedings, where he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. His motion did not meet the requirements of 8 U.S.C.S. 1229a(c)(7)(A),(C)(i), but he sought equitable tolling. The BIA denied his motion based on the precedent that the 90-day deadline for filing was mandatory and jurisdictional, which the court later overruled.

Darwin Gilberto Ruiz-Turcios, a native of Honduras, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision denying his third motion to reopen his removal proceedings, where he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. His motion did not meet the requirements of 8 U.S.C.S. 1229a(c)(7)(A),(C)(i), but he sought equitable tolling. The BIA denied his motion based on the precedent that the 90-day deadline for filing was mandatory and jurisdictional, which the court later overruled.

Issue

Whether the BIA's conclusion that it was barred from reopening Ruiz-Turcios's removal proceedings based on the untimeliness of the motion to reopen was erroneous.

Whether the BIA's conclusion that it was barred from reopening Ruiz-Turcios's removal proceedings based on the untimeliness of the motion to reopen was erroneous.

Rule

The 90-day deadline to seek reopening of a removal proceeding pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule that is subject to equitable tolling.

The 90-day deadline to seek reopening of a removal proceeding pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule that is subject to equitable tolling.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that the BIA's reliance on the 90-day deadline as a jurisdictional bar was incorrect, as the precedent had been overruled. The court noted that the BIA did not address whether the one-motion rule was also a non-jurisdictional claim processing rule subject to equitable tolling, which needed to be resolved before considering Ruiz-Turcios's request for equitable tolling.

The court applied the rule by determining that the BIA's reliance on the 90-day deadline as a jurisdictional bar was incorrect, as the precedent had been overruled. The court noted that the BIA did not address whether the one-motion rule was also a non-jurisdictional claim processing rule subject to equitable tolling, which needed to be resolved before considering Ruiz-Turcios's request for equitable tolling.

Conclusion

The court granted Ruiz-Turcios's petition in part, vacated the BIA's order denying reopening, and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings.

The court granted Ruiz-Turcios's petition in part, vacated the BIA's order denying reopening, and remanded the case to the BIA for further proceedings.

Who won?

Darwin Gilberto Ruiz-Turcios prevailed in part because the court found that the BIA's conclusion regarding the untimeliness of his motion was erroneous due to the overruled precedent.

Darwin Gilberto Ruiz-Turcios prevailed in part because the court found that the BIA's conclusion regarding the untimeliness of his motion was erroneous due to the overruled precedent.

You must be