Pedro Guerrero-Lasprilla v. William Barr, U.S. Att
589 U.S. 221
| 5th Cir. | 2020Background
- Guerrero, a Colombian national admitted in 1986, was ordered removed in 1998 after federal drug convictions that qualify as aggravated felonies and controlled-substance removals.
- In Sept. 2016 Guerrero moved to reopen, asserting Matter of Abdelghany made him eligible for relief under former INA § 212(c) and relying on later Fifth Circuit precedent.
- The IJ denied the motion as untimely under the 90-day rule and concluded Guerrero was not entitled to equitable tolling; the BIA affirmed.
- Guerrero petitioned the Fifth Circuit; the Supreme Court in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr held that courts of appeals may review "questions of law," including application of legal standards to undisputed facts, and remanded.
- On remand the Fifth Circuit reviewed whether Guerrero demonstrated (1) diligence and (2) an extraordinary circumstance to justify equitable tolling of the motion-to-reopen deadline.
- The court held equitable tolling was not warranted: uncertainty in precedent is not an "extraordinary circumstance," and Guerrero’s delay showed insufficient diligence; the petition was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review application-of-law-to-facts (diligence) | Guerrero: question of law review is available. | BIA/Gov: prior practice limited jurisdiction because of aggravated-felony removability. | Held: Supreme Court held "questions of law" include such review; Fifth Circuit thus may decide diligence. |
| Whether the 90‑day motion-to-reopen deadline is equitably tolled | Guerrero: filed 40 days after Lugo‑Resendez; Lugo‑Resendez was intervening change warranting tolling. | BIA/Gov: motion untimely; no extraordinary circumstance; procedural bars/requirements unmet. | Held: No equitable tolling—uncertain legal landscape is not an extraordinary circumstance. |
| Whether Guerrero acted with due diligence | Guerrero: prompt filing after controlling circuit precedent (Lugo‑Resendez) shows diligence. | BIA/Gov: substantial delay (about two years after Abdelghany); not reasonably diligent. | Held: Not sufficiently diligent; equitable‑tolling first element not met. |
| Claim that BIA should reopen proceedings sua sponte | Guerrero: BIA should exercise discretion to reopen. | BIA/Gov: sua sponte reopening is committed to agency discretion and generally unreviewable; issue raised too late. | Held: Court did not consider this claim (raised in reply) and noted lack of jurisdiction to review refusal to reopen sua sponte. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020) ("questions of law" includes application of legal standards to established or undisputed facts; remand for further proceedings)
- Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2016) (deadline for motion to reopen is subject to equitable tolling)
- Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 750 (2016) (an uncertain legal landscape is not an "extraordinary circumstance" for tolling)
- Penalva v. Sessions, 884 F.3d 521 (5th Cir. 2018) (whether petitioner acted diligently for equitable tolling is a factual question relevant to jurisdiction)
- Gomez-Palacios v. Holder, 560 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for BIA denial of motions to reopen: abuse of discretion)
- Mata v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 2150 (2015) (limits on recharacterizing equitable-tolling requests as sua sponte reopening)