Rigoberto Avila-Santoyo v. U.S. Attorney General
713 F.3d 1357
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Avila-Santoyo, a Mexican national, petitions for review of the BIA’s dismissal of his motion to reopen removal proceedings.
- BIA dismissed on departure-bar grounds and alternative timeliness grounds under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i).
- Avila-Santoyo sought equitable tolling of the 90-day filing deadline for motions to reopen.
- Court overruled Abdi v. U.S. Att’y Gen. and held the 90-day deadline is non-jurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling.
- Regulatory framework permits BIA/IJ reopenings sua sponte and additional exceptions to the 90-day deadline, signaling a flexible, non-jurisdictional regime.
- Petition granted; BIA’s order reopening denied is vacated and remanded for consideration of equitable tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 90-day deadline to file a motion to reopen is jurisdictional. | Avila-Santoyo argues the deadline is jurisdictional. | Government contends the deadline is a jurisdictional bar. | Not jurisdictional; treat as a claim-processing rule. |
| Whether the 90-day deadline is subject to equitable tolling. | Deadline should be tolled given extraordinary circumstances. | Deadline is fixed and not tolled. | Equitable tolling applies to the 90-day deadline. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 430 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding 90-day deadline is mandatory and not tollable (overruled))
- Henderson v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 1197 (U.S. 2011) (factors to determine whether a rule is jurisdictional; ultimately non-jurisdictional)
- Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (time prescriptions need not be labeled jurisdictional)
- Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (U.S. 2004) (distinguishes jurisdictional rules from claim-processing rules)
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Locomotive Eng’rs and Trainmen Gen. Comm. of Adjustment, Cent. Region, 558 U.S. 67 (U.S. 2010) (discusses meaning of jurisdictional label and statutory structure)
- Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1995) (purpose of the 90-day change in removal proceedings (context))
- Iavorski v. INS, 232 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2000) (early view on tolling and regulatory flexibility)
- Auburn v. City of New York, 133 S. Ct. 825 (U.S. 2013) (regulatory extensions and caution against reading tolling where not intended)
- Brockamp v. United States, 519 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1997) (discusses tolling in highly technical contexts)