Irigoyen-Briones v. Holder
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10912
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Irigoyen-Briones, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. illegally and faced removal proceedings in 2003.
- An IJ denied him relief and he had 30 days to appeal to the BIA.
- Counsel prepared and mailed a Form EOIR-26 on January 16, 2007, for guaranteed delivery the next day.
- The BIA received the late notice a day after the 30-day deadline due to a postal delay.
- The BIA dismissed as untimely and Irigoyen-Briones challenged the Board's jurisdiction to accept a late filing.
- The Ninth Circuit held the 30-day deadline is a non-jurisdictional, claim-processing rule and remanded for reconsideration, urging potential use of electronic filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 30-day filing deadline is jurisdictional. | Irigoyen-Briones argued the deadline is non-jurisdictional and late filings may be excused. | The Board asserted the deadline is jurisdictional and cannot be extended. | Not jurisdictional; deadline is a claim-processing rule. |
| Does Supreme Court precedent require deference to the Board’s interpretation of the deadline? | Oh and Zhong support excusing late filings; Liadov diverges. | Board argues for deference or overrule by Brand X if ambiguous. | Statute not ambiguous; Kontrick/Scarborough/Arbaugh control; Board’s view rejected. |
| Should the Board have the opportunity to reconsider the late filing under non-jurisdictional rules? | The court should remand to allow the Board to consider under non-jurisdictional standards. | The Board previously concluded it lacked authority to extend time. | Remand granted to permit reconsideration of whether to hear the appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611 (9th Cir. 2005) (non-jurisdictional approach to late filing; not treating deadline as jurisdictional)
- Zhong Guang Sun v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 421 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2005) (late filing; agency misconstruction of deadline emphasized)
- In re Liadov, 23 I. & N. Dec. 990 (BIA 2006) (Board rejected Oh/Zhong; held deadline jurisdictional claim processing concern)
- Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (time limits as claim-processing rules, not jurisdictional)
- Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401 (2004) (time limits generally claim-processing rules; not jurisdictional)
- Henderson v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 1197 (2011) (time deadlines in Article I courts are often non-jurisdictional)
- Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) (limits on jurisdiction must be carefully distinguished from rules about procedure)
- Brand X Internet Servs. v. Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n, 545 U.S. 967 (2005) (agency interpretations deferential only when statute ambiguous; here not applicable)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (unique circumstances exception limited in Article III contexts)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982) (due process and meaningful hearing timing factors)