Jorge Oxlaj-Perez, a citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States as an unaccompanied minor in 2015 and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. After an Immigration Judge denied his claims in 2022, the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the removal order on February 10, 2025. Oxlaj-Perez filed his petition for judicial review with the Sixth Circuit on April 29, 2025, which was 79 days after the Board's final order. The government moved to dismiss the petition as untimely, arguing that the 30-day statutory limit is jurisdictional and cannot be tolled. Oxlaj-Perez argued that he was entitled to equitable tolling due to his limited education, language barriers, and financial constraints.
The court began by addressing whether the 30-day deadline in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) is subject to equitable tolling. Previously, the Sixth Circuit had held the deadline was jurisdictional and therefore not subject to tolling. However, the Supreme Court's decision in Riley v. Bondi reclassified the deadline as a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule. Under established Supreme Court precedent, there is a rebuttable presumption that statutory limitations periods are subject to equitable tolling unless Congress explicitly indicates otherwise. The court analyzed the text, structure, and context of the statute. The text does not expressly prohibit tolling, and the statute lacks the detailed exceptions or technical complexity found in statutes where tolling was denied. Furthermore, the broader Immigration and Nationality Act includes other deadlines that are subject to equitable tolling, and the humanitarian nature of immigration claims supports the availability of tolling. The court rejected the government's arguments that Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure or the need for finality in removal proceedings rebutted the presumption. Having established that tolling is available, the court applied the two-prong test: the petitioner must show (1) diligent pursuit of rights and (2) extraordinary circumstances preventing timely filing. The court found Oxlaj-Perez failed this test. He had actual notice of the deadline in the Board's decision, and the existence of the statute provided constructive knowledge. His claims of limited education and financial constraints were not detailed enough to prove diligence, and such general barriers are not considered extraordinary circumstances in this context.
This decision aligns the Sixth Circuit with the Supreme Court's directive in Riley v. Bondi, allowing immigration petitioners to seek equitable tolling for missed filing deadlines if they can prove diligence and extraordinary circumstances. However, the ruling sets a high bar for petitioners, emphasizing that general hardships like language barriers or poverty are insufficient on their own. The petition was dismissed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of asylum and Convention Against Torture claims remains in effect. The case does not create a new right to file late petitions but clarifies the legal standard for doing so.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download