Garcia Corrales v. Blanche – Do It For The Caselaw

The Ninth Circuit held that a motion to reopen an appeal from an immigration judge's order must be treated as a motion to reopen rather than a motion to reconsider when premised on new evidence. The court granted the petition for review and remanded the case for the Board of Immigration Appeals to evaluate the motion under the correct standard.

Background

The petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought asylum and other relief in removal proceedings. An immigration judge denied relief and ordered the petitioner to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals within thirty days. The petitioner’s counsel mailed the notice of appeal by certified mail eleven days before the deadline, but the notice was not delivered until forty-two days later. The Board dismissed the appeal as untimely. The petitioner then filed a motion to reopen, arguing that the mailing delay constituted an extraordinary circumstance justifying equitable tolling. The Board construed the motion as a motion to reconsider and denied it as untimely.

The court’s reasoning

The court explained that motions to reopen and motions to reconsider are separate and distinct. A motion to reconsider must specify errors in a prior decision based on the existing record, while a motion to reopen is premised on evidence unavailable at the time of the prior decision. The court found that the evidence regarding the mailing delay was not before the Board when it dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the Board was obligated to treat the motion as a motion to reopen, which has a ninety-day filing deadline, rather than a motion to reconsider, which has a thirty-day deadline. The court rejected the government’s reliance on the place-of-filing rule and cases discussing it, noting that those cases did not mandate construing such motions as motions to reconsider.

The BIA is therefore obligated, under its regulations and our case law, to treat motions presenting such facts as motions to reopen.

Garcia Corrales v. Blanche, 24-6467 (9th Cir. June 24, 2026)

What it means going forward

Immigration practitioners must ensure that motions challenging untimely appeals based on new evidence regarding mailing delays are properly characterized as motions to reopen to preserve the ninety-day filing window. The Board must now evaluate the petitioner’s equitable tolling claim under the motion to reopen standard and provide specific reasons for any denial.