Therefore, we must reexamine whether a timely appeal to the BIA is mandatory or jurisdictional, in which case judicial review is procedurally barred by the Liadovs' failure to exhaust with a timely appeal. We did not reach this question in denying the petition for review in Holder v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 825, 829 n. 1 (8th Cir. 2007). In Bowles, the Supreme Court explained that whether a statutory time limit is jurisdictional is a question of legislative intent because Congress decides when, and under what conditions, federal courts can hear cases.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for an extension. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 2010) (BIA's management of briefing schedule under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c)(1) is reviewed for abuse of discretion); Holder v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 825, 828 (8th Cir. 2007) (BIA abuses its discretion if it issues a decision "without rational explanation, departs from established policies, invidiously discriminates against a particular race or group, or fails to consider all factors presented by the alien or distorts important aspects of the claim); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c)(1) (upon written motion, BIA may extend period for filing brief for good cause shown); BIA Practice Manual Ch. 4.7(c)(2) (requests to extend briefing deadlines must be received by original due date; requests received after due date will be denied). In denying the motion, the BIA adhered to its own regulations and policies and explained in its denial order that the request was untimely.

In all three cases, Statewide had 33 days from the date DHS mailed the notice of bond breach determination to file an appeal. Statewide did not do so. Statewide's failure to appeal within the pertinent deadline does not vitiate Statewide's due process right. Cf. Holder v. Gonzales , 499 F.3d 825, 829–30 (8th Cir. 2007) (Board of Immigration Appeal's (BIA) dismissal of appeal filed one day late did not violate petitioner's due process right); Malak v. Gonzales , 419 F.3d 533, 535 (6th Cir. 2005) (no error in BIA's dismissal of appeal as untimely filed based on regulations providing notice of appeal is considered filed when BIA receives it). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissals of Statewide's due process claims in Statewide I , Statewide II and Statewide III .

A statutory time limit challenged as an arbitrary and irrational classification that violates due process or equal protection, which does not draw a suspect classification or violate a fundamental right, need only be supported by a rational legislative purpose. See Holder v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 825, 830–31 (8th Cir. 2007) (rejecting claim that a law requiring appeals to be filed in Virginia violated equal protection because non-Virginians are not a protected class); see also United States v. Prior, 107 F.3d 654, 660–61 (8th Cir. 1997) (applying rational basis review to criminal defendant's challenge to statute of limitations as arbitrary in violation of Fifth Amendment). A statutory time period's starting point satisfies rational basis review if it promotes an agency's "fiscal integrity" by insuring a workable deadline and reasonable timeframe.

For example, although it is unfortunate that a mistaken mailing would have such drastic consequences, this is not the type of case that allows the BIA to excuse the 30-day statute of limitation. See BIA Practice Manual § 3(b)(iv) ("Delays caused by incorrect postage or mailing error by the sending party do not affect existing deadlines."); Holder v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 825, 828-29 (8th Cir. 2007) (finding that the BIA did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appeal delivered one day late). For these reasons, we will deny Yousef s petition for review.