Chen v. Gonzales

9 Citing cases

  1. Dawoud v. Holder

    561 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2009)   Cited 18 times
    Assuming equitable tolling was available but concluding nevertheless that a motion to reopen filed out of time (two years post-final decision and eleven months post-I-130 approval) did not warrant equitable tolling

    The BIA's denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Tandayu v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 97, 100 (1st Cir. 2008); Chen v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 151, 153 (1st Cir. 2005). The BIA's decision will be upheld "unless the complaining party can show that the BIA committed an error of law or exercised its judgment in an arbitrary, capricious, or irrational way."

  2. Renaut v. Lynch

    791 F.3d 163 (1st Cir. 2015)   Cited 13 times

    “We review the ... denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion.” Chen v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 151, 153 (1st Cir.2005) (citation omitted). “The agency's resolution of such a motion will stand unless that resolution rests on a material error of law or a manifestly arbitrary exercise of judgment.”

  3. Arias-Valencia v. Mukasey

    529 F.3d 428 (1st Cir. 2008)   Cited 5 times

    None of the exceptions apply to him, and, therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion. See Chen v. Gonzáles, 415 F.3d 151, 153 (1st Cir. 2005). Arias has filed numerous motions to reopen with the BIA; the current one is a near-reproduction of his prior motions.

  4. Córdoba-Quiroz v. Gonzáles

    233 F. App'x 5 (1st Cir. 2007)   Cited 1 times

    Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Córdoba's motion for reconsideration because it reached the correct legal conclusion that her motion to reopen was untimely.See Chen v. Gonzáles, 415 F.3d 151, 153 (1st Cir. 2005) ("An abuse of discretion exists 'where the BIA misinterprets the law, or acts either arbitrarily or capriciously.'"). To the extent that Córdoba's timeliness argument relies on the BIA's sua sponte power to reopen her removal proceedings despite her tardiness, we reiterate that we have no jurisdiction to review the BIA's use of that discretion.

  5. Dalombo Fontes v. Gonzales

    483 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2007)   Cited 9 times

    The Board's denial of a motion to reopen is reviewed by this court for an abuse of discretion. Chen v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 151, 153 (1st Cir.2005). "An abuse of discretion exists where the BIA misinterprets the law, or acts either arbitrarily or capriciously.'"

  6. Tapia-Martinez v. Gonzales

    482 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2007)   Cited 57 times
    Finding that a fifteen-month delay between discovering counsel's deficient performance and filing a motion to reopen "cannot be considered due diligence"

    Assuming arguendo that equitable tolling applied to the one motion limit, the First, Third, and Eighth Circuits have held that the doctrine was inapplicable for other reasons, such as lack of due diligence. See Habchy v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 858, 864-65 (8th Cir.2006); Chen v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 151, 154, 154 n. 3 (1st Cir.2005); Luntungan, 449 F.3d at 557; Jobe v. INS, 238 F.3d 96, 100 (1st Cir.2001) (en banc). The Sixth Circuit has applied the doctrine of equitable tolling to otherwise time-barred motions to reopen.

  7. Joumaa v. Gonzales

    446 F.3d 244 (1st Cir. 2006)   Cited 2 times

    We need not reach the issue of whether equitable tolling is even available to excuse a late filing in the immigration context. See Boakai v. Gonzales, No. 05-1961, 2006 WL 1101616, at *4 n. 2, 447 F.3d 1, 3 n. 2 (1st Cir. April 27, 2006); Chen v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 151, 154 n. 3 (1st Cir. 2005) (noting that this question was left open by Jobe v. INS, 238 F.3d 96 (1st Cir. 2001) (en banc), and declining to resolve it). Joumaa did not argue equitable tolling to the BIA and therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

  8. Boakai v. Gonzales

    447 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2006)   Cited 24 times
    Finding insufficient evidence of due diligence where petitioner acknowledged receipt of Board's earlier decision in March 2002, current counsel was appointed in October 2002, and motion to reopen was not filed until April 2003, a year after the Board's final order was rendered

    This court has not yet decided whether the BIA has the power to excuse late filing on the basis of equitable tolling. See Jobe v. INS, 238 F.3d 96, 100 (1st Cir. 2001) (en banc); see also Chen v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 151, 154 n. 3 (1st Cir. 2005) (noting the issue remains unresolved). Such due diligence is not present here.

  9. Estrada-Canales v. Gonzales

    437 F.3d 208 (1st Cir. 2006)   Cited 9 times

    The argument is therefore waived. See Chen v. Gonzales, 415 F.3d 151, 154 (1st Cir. 2005). b. Timing of Withdrawal of Visa Petition