Lin v. U.S. Attorney General
677 F.3d 1043
11th Cir.2012Background
- Chao Lin and Xue Yun Lin (Lins) sought asylum-related relief; Board denied their third motion to reopen on Dec 14, 2010.
- They had 30 days to petition for review in the Eleventh Circuit after the Board’s denial, under 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(1).
- They paid Federal Express to deliver the petition on Jan 13; Clerk’s office opened late due to weather but was open the same day (final deadline Jan 13).
- Federal Express delivered the petition on Jan 14, one day after the deadline, raising timeliness concerns.
- The government conceded untimeliness but argued the Clerk’s office was accessible on the filing due date, so no jurisdiction to review; the court agreed and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Rule: when the Clerk’s office is accessible, late filings are not tollable; inaccessibility must extend the deadline.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Lin petition was timely under Rule 26(a)/§1252 | Lin argued weather caused delay; delivery would have arrived on time if not for weather. | Clerk’s office was accessible on the due date; no tolling allowed. | Untimely; lack of jurisdiction; petition dismissed. |
| Whether inclement weather makes the Clerk's office inaccessible | Weather caused the delay; inaccessibility should extend filing time. | Clerk’s office remained open and accessible; no inaccessibility. | Not inaccessible; no equitable tolling. |
| Whether the Lins can rely on extraordinary circumstances from other circuits | Other circuits permit relief from late filings under extraordinary circumstances. | Those cases do not apply to petitions for review of Board orders; not jurisdictional tolling. | Not applicable; petition still untimely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dakane v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 371 F.3d 771 (11th Cir. 2004) (statutory filing deadline not subject to equitable tolling)
- Yepremyan v. Holder, 614 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2010) (inaccessibility can arise from weather or other conditions)
- Latham v. Dominick's Finer Foods, 149 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 1998) (any day the court is practically inaccessible may extend the deadline)
- U.S. Leather, Inc. v. H & W Partnership, 60 F.3d 222 (5th Cir. 1995) (administrative accessibility considerations)
- Hotel Syracuse, Inc. v. Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 154 B.R. 13 (N.D.N.Y. 1993) (bankruptcy context on accessibility and filing)