Background
The petitioner, a native of El Salvador, sought asylum and related relief after fleeing police detention and abuse. After an immigration judge denied relief and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, the petitioner filed a motion to reopen proceedings based on new evidence regarding his partner’s detention. The motion was filed more than ninety days after the final order, prompting the Board to deny it as untimely.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the Board’s decision for abuse of discretion. It found the Board adequately considered the petitioner’s arguments regarding his pro se status, detention, and lack of resources. The court held that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of showing due diligence, as he provided no specific evidence of efforts to find counsel or prepare the motion. Additionally, the court determined that general hardships like detention and lack of counsel do not constitute extraordinary circumstances sufficient to justify equitable tolling.
We cannot say the BIA abused its discretion by holding that Petitioner failed to pursue his rights diligently.
Bonilla-Espinoza v. Blanche, 25-9552 (10th Cir. 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the strict application of the ninety-day deadline for motions to reopen and clarifies that general hardships in immigration proceedings do not automatically justify equitable tolling.