James v. Garland, 16 F.4th 320

Andrea Joy James, a Jamaican national and long-term U.S. resident, was ordered removed by an Immigration Judge (IJ) on Feb. 19, 2020; the IJ's written memorandum listed an incorrect appeal date but the correct 30-day deadline was March 20, 2020.
James was detained at Bristol County House of Correction (BCHOC) and, amid the emerging COVID-19 emergency in March 2020, missed the March 20 appeal deadline.
On April 1, 2020 James (pro se) mailed a Notice of Appeal received by the BIA on April 6; she included a motion to accept the late appeal, a request for equitable tolling, and cited detention, medical problems, and inability to secure counsel.
The BIA summarily dismissed the appeal on June 19, 2020 as untimely, construing James's filings as a request for self-certification and declining to accept the late appeal; the BIA did not address equitable tolling.
James sought judicial review; the First Circuit vacated the BIA's dismissal and remanded for the BIA to decide in the first instance whether equitable tolling made the appeal timely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to review BIA's failure to consider equitable tolling	James: Court may review BIA's timeliness ruling and whether equitable tolling applies	Government: No jurisdiction because appeal to BIA was untimely and administrative remedies unexhausted	Court: Jurisdiction exists to review BIA's refusal to consider equitable tolling (distinguishing merits review of removal order)
Adequacy of James's equitable-tolling request	James: Her supplement and motion to accept untimely appeal expressly requested equitable tolling and a stay; pro se filings should be read liberally	Government: The request was indirect/vague and insufficient	Court: James sufficiently raised equitable tolling; pro se status supports liberal construction
Whether BIA's denial via self-certification equates to ruling on equitable tolling	James: BIA failed to address equitable tolling and thus erred	Government: BIA addressed the issue by denying certification and therefore rejected tolling	Court: Self-certification denial is not the same as an equitable-tolling determination; BIA did not rule on tolling and must do so on remand
Whether court should resolve tolling or remand	James: BIA should be given first opportunity to consider tolling and allow briefing	Government: BIA's dismissal stands; court can defer	Court: Vacated and remanded for BIA to consider equitable tolling in the first instance rather than resolving tolling on appeal

Attipoe v. Barr, 945 F.3d 76 (first-circuit jurisdiction to review BIA timeliness ruling)
Liadov v. Mukasey, 518 F.3d 1003 (discussion of BIA self-certification of untimely appeals)
Daoud v. Barr, 948 F.3d 76 (BIA considered and rejected equitable tolling in that case)
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (equitable tolling standard: diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (equitable tolling framework)
United States v. Wong, 575 U.S. 402 (distinguishing jurisdictional time bars)
Poole v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 259 (late appeal to BIA leaves claim unexhausted)
Bolieiro v. Holder, 731 F.3d 32 (distinguishing equitable tolling from agency sua sponte authority)