115 F.4th 934
9th Cir.2024Background
- Claude Bent, a Jamaican national and lawful permanent resident in the U.S. since 1980, was convicted in California state court in 2006 after pleading no contest to two felonies.
- Bent's plea was later vacated by a California court under Penal Code § 1473.7(a)(1) after finding his plea was involuntary due to lack of understanding of immigration consequences, violating his Fifth Amendment rights.
- After serving a prison sentence, Bent was detained upon release by DHS and placed in removal proceedings based on the vacated conviction.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied Bent's motion to reopen removal proceedings, finding it untimely and rejecting equitable tolling, and misconstrued the nature of the state court vacatur.
- Both Bent and the government requested remand so the BIA could re-evaluate its decision under the correct legal standards relating to § 1473.7 and equitable tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA mischaracterized California Penal Code § 1473.7(a)(1) as only a rehabilitative vacatur statute | Bent: Statute allows vacatur for substantive/procedural defect, not just for immigration hardship | Government: Agrees BIA erred; § 1473.7 requires legal invalidity, not mere relief from consequences | Court: BIA erred; remand for proper application of law |
| Whether BIA applied incorrect legal framework for diligence in equitable tolling | Bent: BIA wrongly measured diligence from 2006 conviction, not when put on notice (2016) | Government: Agrees BIA should reassess diligence using correct start point | Court: BIA misapplied diligence standard; remand to reconsider from correct notice point |
| Whether vacatur under § 1473.7(a)(1) eliminates removability for immigration purposes | Bent: Conviction vacated on constitutional grounds, so not a valid basis for removal | Government: Parties agree BIA must reassess validity of conviction for immigration | Court: Remand for BIA to determine if vacatur vitiates removability |
| Whether five-year delay after receiving NTA defeated Bent’s claim of diligence for equitable tolling | Bent: Delay justified; pursued relief as soon as practicable | Government: Must re-evaluate in light of overall circumstances | Court: Remand to BIA to resolve diligence question fully |
Key Cases Cited
- Nath v. Gonzales, 467 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing between substantive/procedural and rehabilitative vacaturs for immigration purposes)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2011) (diligence measured from when petitioner was put on notice of underlying error)
- Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575 (9th Cir. 2016) (long gaps without action undercut claim of diligence for equitable tolling)
- Ballinas-Lucero v. Garland, 44 F.4th 1169 (9th Cir. 2022) (vacated conviction on grounds of procedural/substantive defect cannot serve as basis for removal)