8 C.F.R. § 1003.2

Section 1003.2(a) gives the BIA sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings, but its decision not to exercise that authority is not subject to judicial review.

Mota-Gonzalez v. Mukasey · filed 2008-09-04(a)

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Section 1003.2(a) gives the BIA complete discretion to reopen a case sua sponte, so its decision is beyond judicial review.

Shivmangal v. Mukasey · filed 2008-09-22(a)

“[A] decision of the BIA whether to reopen a case sua sponte under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) is entirely discretionary and therefore beyond our review. ...”

Subsection (a) permits the BIA to reopen proceedings sua sponte, and courts lack jurisdiction to review its decision not to invoke that authority.

Galindo v. Mukasey · filed 2008-09-23(a)

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings, under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) bars an untimely motion to reopen when no regulatory exception applies.

Ramirez v. Gonzales · filed 2007-04-09(c)(2)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen because the motion to reopen was untimely and did not meet any of the regulatory exceptions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3); Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final decision.

Gomez-Arevalo v. Gonzales · filed 2005-12-23(c)(2)

The BIA properly denied Gomez-Arevalo’s motion to reopen as untimely filed. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) requires such a motion to be filed within 90 days of the BIA’s final decision. Although the BIA entered its final order in these proceedings on 29 January 2004, Gomez-Arevalo did not file her motion to reopen until 25 January 2005, 272 days after the due date. Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that her failure to timely file the motion should result in its denial.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the final administrative decision, subject to equitable tolling for ineffective assistance of counsel when the alien has exercised due diligence.

Chen v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Services · filed 2006-01-24(c)(2)

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), a motion to reopen must generally be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceedings sought to be reopened. This time period may be equitably tolled if there is a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Iavorski v. INS, 232 F.3d 124, 127 (2d Cir.2000). However, “[f]or an untimely claim to receive the benefit of equitable tolling ... an alien must demonstrate not only that the alien’s constitutional right to due process has been violated by the conduct of counsel ] but that the alien has exercised due diligence in pursuing the case during the period the alien seeks to toll.” Id. at 135. ... Therefore, since Chen did not pursue his case with due diligence during the fourteen months between the 2002 BIA decision and his 2003 motion to reopen, his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel does not operate to toll the 90 day time-period under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) imposes a ninety-day time limit for filing a motion to reopen.

Urrutia v. Gonzales · filed 2006-04-12(c)(2)

We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen on the ground that it was untimely filed. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2005) (establishing a ninety-day time limitation for filing a motion to reopen); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 (1992) (setting forth standard of review).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision, and the deadline applies under either of the possible dates considered here.

Ruan v. Gonzales · filed 2006-04-25(c)(2)

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), a motion to reopen “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” ... We need not address which of these dates constitutes the “final administrative decision,” because the BIA did not receive Ruan’s motion to reopen until March 17, 2003, and therefore it was filed beyond the 90-day deadline under either calculation.

Section 1003.2(c) imposes a 90-day filing deadline for a motion to reopen, subject to the regulation's exceptions.

Prifti v. Gonzales · filed 2006-04-27(c)

The BIA reasonably found that Prifti’s motion was untimely filed under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c) — the motion, which challenged the BIA’s March 31, 2004, decision was filed on December 8, 2004, well beyond the 90-day filing deadline.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen within 90 days of a final removal order, while § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) permits an exemption for qualifying changed country conditions only when the evidence was previously unavailable.

Lin v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Services · filed 2006-04-27(c)(2), (c)(3)(ii)

A motion to reopen must normally be filed within 90 days of a final administrative order of removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). ... Lin argues, however, that his motion to reopen falls under an exemption to the 90-day filing requirement carved out by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), allowing a motion to reopen an application for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief, when the motion is based on changed circumstances in the country to which the applicant has been ordered removed, and such evidence was not available and could not have been discovered at the previous hearing. ... The BIA was correct in finding that Lin failed to establish why this evidence was previously unavailable. ... Thus, the BIA’s denial of Lin’s motion was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after the final administrative decision in the proceeding sought to be reopened.

Lin v. Board of Immigration Reviews · filed 2006-06-12(c)(2)

Because Lin’s second motion to reopen was filed over ninety days after “the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened,” the BIA correctly determined that the motion to reopen was untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the BIA's decision.

Singh v. Gonzales · filed 2006-06-16(c)(2)

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as untimely because Singh filed his motion almost two years after the BIA’s decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of BIA’s decision).

Subsection (c)(2) imposes a 90-day deadline for motions to reopen, while subsection (a) makes the BIA’s sua sponte reopening authority entirely discretionary and beyond judicial review.

Huang v. Gonzales · filed 2006-07-26(c)(2), (a)

The BIA reasonably found that Huang filed an untimely motion. Because Huang did not appeal the IJ’s January 1999 decision denying Huang’s applications for relief and ordering him deported, that decision was the final administrative decision from which his motion had to be filed within ninety days. Huang’s motion, which is the subject of his petition to this Court, was, however, filed in August 2005, well beyond the 90-day deadline under the regulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). ... This Court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise its sua sponte authority. See Ali v. Gonzales, 448 F.3d 515 (2d Cir.2006) (holding that a decision of the BIA whether to reopen a case sua sponte under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) is entirely discretionary and, therefore, beyond the Court’s review — i.e., the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to reopen.)

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after the Board of Immigration Appeals' final decision, absent an applicable exception.

Macias v. Gonzales · filed 2006-07-28(c)(2)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely, as it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final decision and no exceptions to the time limitation apply. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (c)(3); Khourassany v. INS, 208 F.3d 1096, 1099 (9th Cir.2000) (explaining that motion to reopen time limit does not apply to CAT applicants ordered removed before March 22,1999).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen before the BIA to be filed within 90 days of the final administrative decision, subject to relevant exceptions.

Singh v. Gonzales · filed 2006-08-01(c)(2)

A motion to reopen before the BIA must be filed within 90 days of the final administrative decision.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the final administrative decision.

Sheqi v. Gonzales · filed 2006-08-15(c)(2)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sheqi’s motion as untimely, when it was filed over two years after the BIA dismissed her appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the final administrative decision).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after a final administrative decision.

Singh v. Gonzales · filed 2006-04-12(c)(2)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as untimely because Singh filed it more than one year after the final administrative decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (generally requiring that a motion to reopen be filed within 90 days after a final decision is rendered).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after the Board of Immigration Appeals issues its final decision.

Rebeiz v. Gonzales · filed 2007-02-27(c)(2)

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Rebeiz’s motion to reopen, filed more than 90 days after the BIA issued its final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), where the evidence he submitted failed to demonstrate that conditions had changed in Lebanon since his previous hearing, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after the Board of Immigration Appeals’ final decision, subject to applicable exceptions.

Apelo v. Gonzales · filed 2007-02-27(c)(2)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final decision, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Apelo did not establish that the motion fell within any exception to the 90-day limit.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Nuruzzaman v. Gonzales · filed 2007-03-01(c)(2)

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Nuruzzaman’s motion as untimely because it was filed over two years after the BIA’s final removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision was rendered).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Badillo-Tena v. Gonzales · filed 2007-03-01(c)(2)

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Badillo-Tena’s motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed over one year after the BIA’s final removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision was rendered).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the BIA’s final order, subject to regulatory exceptions.

Singh v. Gonzales · filed 2007-03-01(c)(2)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as untimely because it was not filed within ninety days of the BIA’s December 29, 1999 order.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally limits a party to one motion to reopen filed within 90 days, but the deadline may be equitably tolled for ineffective assistance when the movant exercised due diligence.

Fu v. Gonzales · filed 2007-03-14(c)(2)

With limited exceptions, a party may file only one motion to reopen removal proceedings (whether before the BIA or an IJ), and that motion must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened, or on or before September 30, 1996, whichever is later. ... Here, Fu does not dispute that her December 2005 motion to reopen was untimely, as a final order of removal became effective in her case as of July 1998 when she failed to depart the United States after being granted voluntary departure. The 90-day deadline may be equitably tolled to accommodate claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, so long as the movant has exercised “due diligence” in vindicating her rights. ... Thus, the IJ and BIA did not abuse their discretion in finding that the ineffectiveness of Fu’s former attorneys did not provide a basis for tolling the 90-day deadline for the filing of her motion to reopen.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days, subject to specified exceptions.

Nishan v. Gonzales · filed 2007-03-15(c)(2)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Nishan’s motion to reopen as untimely because he filed it more than four years after the BIA’s November 8, 2001 order and failed to demonstrate that he qualified for any exception to the ninety-day time limit. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen removal proceedings to be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Lakhani v. Gonzales · filed 2007-03-19(c)(2)

A motion to reopen removal proceedings “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The final administrative decision in Lakhani’s removal proceeding was issued on February 14, 2005. Lakhani’s motion to reopen, filed on March 14, 2006, was therefore untimely.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision, absent an applicable exception.

Oke v. Gonzales · filed 2007-04-04(c)(2)

A motion to reopen “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered.”* 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2006). ... Because Oke filed the motion to reopen beyond the ninety-day period for filing such motions, we find the Board did not abuse its discretion.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Romero-Acero v. Gonzales · filed 2007-04-09(c)(2)

The regulations provide that, absent certain exceptional circumstances, a motion to reopen “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be' reopened.”

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a party to file a motion to reopen within 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Mayorga-Moran v. Gonzales · filed 2007-04-09(c)(2)

The regulations provide that a party may file a motion to reopen “no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened....” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge not to grant petitioner’s motion to reopen, filed more than 13 years after issuance of the administrative order in petitioner’s case. See id.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days, subject to equitable tolling in appropriate circumstances, and subsection (a)'s sua sponte reopening decision is not reviewable for lack of jurisdiction.

Santos v. Gonzales · filed 2007-04-23(c)(2), (a)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Santos’ motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than ninety days after the BIA’s March 31, 2004 order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Santos did not show he was entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir.2003) (explaining that the deadline for filing a motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence.”). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) imposes a ninety-day deadline for motions to reopen, subject to specified exceptions.

Singh v. Gonzales · filed 2007-04-23(c)(2)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as untimely because he filed it more than two years after the BIA’s March 12, 2003 order, and Singh failed to demonstrate that he qualified for any exception to the ninety-day time limit. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen a final BIA decision to be filed within 90 days, subject to equitable tolling.

Zou v. Gonzales · filed 2007-04-30(c)(2)

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), a motion to reopen a final decision of the BIA must be filed within 90 days of the date on which that decision was rendered. We have recognized, however, that the 90-day period is subject to equitable tolling.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) prescribes a 90-day filing period for motions to reopen, and even assuming equitable tolling, Singh's motion was untimely.

Singh v. Gonzales · filed 2007-05-09(c)(2)

Even if we were to apply equitable tolling of the 90-day filing period prescribed by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897, Singh’s motion to reopen was untimely. Equitable tolling would have ended on January 31, 2005, when Singh received a copy of his case file from Kang. Singh waited, however, until May 19, 2005, 108 days later, to file his motion to reopen.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after the final administrative decision, but the deadline may be equitably tolled for ineffective assistance of counsel when due process violation and due diligence are shown.

Zhao v. Gonzales · filed 2007-05-11(c)(2)

A motion to reopen must generally be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceedings sought to be reopened. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). “The time limit may be equitably tolled if there is a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, and the petitioner demonstrates both that his constitutional right to due process was thereby violated, and that he exercised due diligence in pursuing the case during the period for which tolling is sought” and after he discovered the alleged ineffectiveness. Zheng Zhong Chen v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 267, 269 (2d Cir.2006) (per curiam); see Iavorski v. INS, 232 F.3d 124, 134 (2d Cir.2000).

Section 1003.2(c) requires a motion to reopen to be filed no later than 90 days after the final order of removal is entered.

Reynada v. Gonzales · filed 2007-05-14(c)

Motions to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days after the final order of removal is entered. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Ortega v. Gonzales · filed 2007-05-14(c)(2)

We find that this petition for review is appropriate for summary disposition because petitioners’ motion to reopen violated the time limitation on motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). A motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days after the date on which a final administrative decision was filed. Id.

Section 1003.2(c) generally limits a motion to reopen to 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Sharma v. Gonzales · filed 2007-05-16(c)

Sharma filed her motion to reopen for adjustment of status on May 1, 2000, more than five years later and well beyond the 90-day limitation on such motions. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) and (c)(3) generally require a motion to reopen within 90 days, subject to exceptions, while subsection (a) gives the BIA discretionary authority to reopen or reconsider a case sua sponte at any time, and courts lack jurisdiction to review its refusal to exercise that authority.

Ohiri v. Gonzales · filed 2007-05-18(a), (c)(2), and (c)(3)

Subject to certain exceptions, motions to reopen deportation proceedings must be filed within 90 days of the date of the final administrative decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) and (c)(3). ... Where, as conceded here, a motion to reopen is untimely, the petitioner has but one recourse to open her case: the BIA’s equitable, discretionary authority to “at any time reopen or reconsider on its own motion any case in which it has rendered a decision.” Id. § 1003.2(a). Because this “sua sponte” relief is entirely discretionary and the BIA is under no obligation to reopen a case on an untimely motion, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of equitable relief.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the final administrative decision, subject to the changed-country-conditions exception in subsection (c)(3)(ii).

Ni v. Board of Immigration Appeals · filed 2007-06-06(c)(2)

Normally, a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the final administrative decision, but an alien is not subject to this time limitation if she demonstrates changed circumstances in her country of nationality. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3)(ii). Upon review of the record and the 2005 State Department report,1 of which the BIA took administrative notice, we conclude that the BIA adequately considered the evidence, and did not abuse its discretion in finding that Ni failed to demonstrate changed country conditions.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Gutierrez v. Gonzales · filed 2007-06-12(c)(2)

The regulations provide that a motion to reopen “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to reopen filed over a year after the BIA’s decision as untimely.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) imposes a 90-day filing deadline for motions to reopen.

Vazquez v. Gonzales · filed 2007-07-02(c)(2)

That ruling was not an abuse of the BIA’s discretion because the motion was well outside the 90-day window for filing, and the petitioner did not present any evidence of due diligence. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) imposes a 90-day deadline for motions to reopen, subject to equitable tolling for qualifying ineffective-assistance claims pursued with due diligence.

Jiang v. Board of Immigration Appeals · filed 2007-07-10(c)(2)

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the entry of the final decision in the underlying proceeding. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel may provide a sufficient basis for equitable tolling of the 90-day period if the movant shows that his *650due process rights were violated by the conduct of counsel, and that he exercised “due diligence in pursuing the case during the period [he] seeks to toll.”

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen removal proceedings to be filed within 90 days after the final removal order.

Ponce v. Gonzales · filed 2007-07-27(c)(2)

A motion to reopen removal proceedings must be filed no later than ninety days after the date on which the final order of removal was entered.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after the final administrative decision, or by September 30, 1996, whichever is later.

Li v. Gonzales · filed 2007-07-30(c)(2)

Motions to reopen must be filed “no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened, or on or before September 30, 1996, whichever is later.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2006). An exception to the 90 day window is a claim of changed circumstances in the country to which the alien is to be deported. Section 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Clearly, the Board did not abuse its discretion in finding that the motion was untimely, as it was filed more than four years after the final order. Furthermore, Li did not sufficiently establish changed circumstances within China that would excuse the untimeliness of the motion.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the final administrative decision, subject to limited exceptions.

Tintor v. Gonzales · filed 2007-08-03(c)(2)

In this case, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Tintor’s motion as untimely, when it was filed over 19 months after the BIA upheld the denial of relief. With certain limited exceptions not relevant here, the regulations require that a motion to reopen be filed within 90 days of the final administrative decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Because the government opposed Tintor’s motion, the untimely filing was a sufficient reason for the BIA to deny the motion.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after the final administrative decision, subject to exceptions.

Martinez-Sanchez v. Gonzales · filed 2007-08-24(c)(2)

The regulations provide, with certain exceptions that do not apply to this case, that a motion to reopen “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision, subject to equitable tolling only when justified.

Dong v. Gonzales · filed 2007-08-24(c)(2)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Dong’s motion was untimely *717and did not qualify for equitable tolling of the 90-day statute of limitations applied to motions to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motions to reopen “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered”); Cekic v. INS, 435 F.3d 167, 170-72 (2d Cir.2006) (discussing equitable tolling as applied to the filing deadline governing motions to reopen).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision, subject to specified exceptions.

Flores v. Gonzales · filed 2007-08-24(c)(2)

The regulations provide, with certain exceptions that do not apply to this case, that a motion to reopen “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ untimely motion to reopen. See id.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen in a case previously subject to a final BIA decision to be filed within 90 days after that decision.

Velarde v. Gonzales · filed 2007-08-24(c)(2)

The regulations state a motion to reopen in any case previously the subject of a final decision by the BIA must be filed no later than 90 days after the date of that decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Subsection (c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after the final order.

Singh v. Gonzales · filed 2007-08-28(c)(2)

Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), an individual may move to reopen his case, but must generally do so within 90 days of the entry of the final order in the underlying proceeding.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) imposes a 90-day filing deadline for general motions to reopen.

Kawashima v. Gonzales · filed 2007-09-18(c)(2)

Accordingly, we conclude that the BIA did not err in applying the 90-day filing deadlines for general motions to reopen pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) and in denying Mr. Kawashima’s motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed almost eight months late.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a general motion to reopen to be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision, or by September 30, 1996, whichever is later.

Kawashima v. Gonzales · filed 2007-09-18(c)(2)

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), a general motion to reopen “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened, or on or before September 30, 1996, whichever is later.”

A motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the final order of removal unless the movant submits new and material evidence of changed country conditions that excuses the late filing.

Rostum v. Keisler · filed 2007-09-27(c)(2), (c)(3)(ii)

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Rostum’s motion to reopen as untimely because Rostum filed the motion nearly six months after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (a motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final order of removal), and he failed to submit new and material evidence of changed country conditions in Egypt that would excuse the late filing, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); see also Malty, 381 F.3d at 945 (requiring circumstances to “have changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution”).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires an alien seeking to reopen proceedings before the BIA to file the motion no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Leyva-Estrada v. Keisler · filed 2007-09-27(c)(2)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Leyva-Estrada’s motion to reopen was untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (an alien seeking to reopen proceedings before the BIA must file the motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision).

Section 1003.2 requires a motion to reopen within 90 days, except when based on material, previously unavailable changed country conditions; self-induced personal changes do not qualify.

Islam v. Keisler · filed 2007-10-02(c)(2), (c)(3)(ii), (c)(3)(h)

The regulations require an alien seeking to reopen proceedings to file a motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). ... The 90-day filing deadline for motions to reopen does not apply where the motion is “based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality ... if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). ... Nor is his marriage or pending 1-130 status the kind of changed circumstance that could excuse his delay. See Wang v. BIA, 437 F.3d 270, 273 (2d Cir.2006) (holding that a self-induced change in personal circumstances does not qualify under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(h)).

For an ordinary motion to reopen, the regulation requires filing within 90 days of the Board’s decision.

Sanchez v. Keisler · filed 2007-10-04(c)(2)

The regulations require that a motion to reopen for this type of claim must be filed within 90 days of the Board’s decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Because Sanchez’s motion was filed long after that 90-day period elapsed, the BIA properly concluded that her motion was untimely.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen removal proceedings to be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Rodriguez-Terrazas v. Mukasey · filed 2008-03-17(c)(2)

The regulations state that a motion to reopen removal proceedings must be filed no later than ninety days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the final administrative decision.

Sidhu v. Mukasey · filed 2008-03-25(c)(2)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sidhu’s motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than 20 months after the BIA’s December 4, 2002 decision dismissing his direct appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the final administrative decision).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen removal proceedings to be filed within 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Roman-Gutierrez v. Mukasey · filed 2008-03-27(c)(2)

The regulations state that a motion to reopen removal proceedings must be filed no later than ninety days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within ninety days.

Kumar v. Mukasey · filed 2008-04-14(c)(2)

The regulations require that a motion to reopen be filed within ninety days.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Uddin v. Mukasey · filed 2008-04-21(c)(2)

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), a motion to reopen “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.”

Section 1003.2(c)(2) imposes a 90-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen after the BIA's removal decision.

Alvaro-De Games v. Mukasey · filed 2008-04-21(c)(2)

Petitioner’s motion to reopen was filed more than fifteen years after the BIA’s May 4, 1992 decision ordering him removed, far beyond the ninety days allowed by regulation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to reopen as untimely. See Cano-Merida v. INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the administratively final order, subject to certain exceptions.

Mate v. Mukasey · filed 2008-04-23(c)(2)

With certain exceptions not relevant here, a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the administratively final order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion as untimely.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision, subject to equitable tolling when the movant exercises due diligence.

Oganesyan v. Mukasey · filed 2008-04-28(c)(2)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Oganesyan’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than three years after the BIA’s February 28, 2002 order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision). The BIA properly concluded that Oganesyan was not entitled to equitable tolling because he did not demonstrate that he exercised due diligence.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Shakramanyan v. Mukasey · filed 2008-04-28(c)(2)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying as untimely Shakramanyan’s motion to reopen because the motion was filed more than two years after the BIA’s May 15, 2001 order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after entry of the final decision in the underlying proceeding.

Frasheri v. Mukasey · filed 2008-05-01(c)(2)

Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), an individual may move to reopen his case, but must do so within 90 days of the entry of the final decision in the underlying proceeding.

Section 1003.2 generally requires a motion to reopen within 90 days, subject to exceptions such as materially changed country conditions supported by previously unavailable evidence; the court applied these rules to reject the motion.

Braka v. Mukasey · filed 2008-05-06(c)(2), (c)(3)(ii), (e)(3)(ii)

A motion to reopen must generally “be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Because the BIA dismissed his appeal from the decision of the Immigration Judge in January 2005, Braka’s February 2007 motion was plainly untimely. Here, the BIA reasonably found that Braka failed to satisfy the exception to the time-limitation, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), where his submission of the 2005 Country Report and articles relating to violence against Democratic Party members did not demonstrate changed country conditions. ... The BIA reasonably found that Braka had failed to show how the release of his brother’s killer posed a risk of harm to the Brakas if they return to Albania. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(e)(3)(ii).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the final administrative order unless a regulatory exception applies.

De La Cruz v. Mukasey · filed 2008-05-16(c)(2)

The regulations provide that a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the final administrative order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because the motion to reopen was filed more than six months after the final administrative order and did not meet a regulatory exception to the 90-day filing requirement.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally allows only one motion to reopen filed within 90 days after the final administrative decision, while subsection (c)(3)(ii) permits reopening based on changed circumstances.

Margaryan v. Mukasey · filed 2008-05-16(c)(2), (c)(3)(ii)

The regulations provide that “a party may file only one motion to reopen,” and that the motion “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to reopen, filed more than three years after the final administrative decision was rendered. ... Nor did the BIA err in concluding that petitioner failed to show that reopening was warranted based on changed circumstances in Armenia. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed with the BIA within 90 days after the BIA mails its decision.

Mendez v. Mukasey · filed 2008-05-16(c)(2)

Specifically, the regulations provide that a motion to reopen must be filed with the BIA within ninety days after the mailing of the BIA’s decision. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). In this case, the record reflects that petitioners’ motion to reopen was filed with the BIA on June 28, 2007, 92 days after the BIA’s March 28, 2007 order dismissing petitioners’ appeal. Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioners’ untimely motion to reconsider.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after the final administrative order of removal, subject to applicable exceptions.

Ezeanuna v. Attorney General · filed 2008-05-19(c)(2)

Ordinarily, “[t]he motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Ezeanuna’s motion to reopen, even the one that was rejected for failure to pay the filing fees, was late.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the prior decision, absent an applicable exception.

Weng v. Mukasey · filed 2008-05-20(c)(2)

We find that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Weng’s untimely motion to reopen. As the BIA noted, its prior decision was issued in February 2005, but Weng did not file his motion until April 2007, well beyond the 90-day deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Moreover, the BIA properly found that Weng’s motion did not qualify for an exception to *56the time limitation. See id.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen removal proceedings to be filed within 90 days of the final administrative order of removal; a motion filed almost four years late is untimely absent an applicable exception.

Sadiku v. Attorney General of the United States · filed 2008-05-21(c)(2)

“[t]he motion to reopen shall be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). ... Sadiku’s motion to reopen was almost fours year late. Because the motion to reopen was untimely, and none of the exceptions apply,2 the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying it.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the BIA's first decision.

Chen v. Attorney General · filed 2008-05-21(c)(2)

First, the motion was not filed within 90 days of the BIA’s first decision, as required by regulation. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

A motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the final administrative decision.

Hernandez v. Mukasey · filed 2008-05-21(c)(2)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lopez Hernandez’s motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed more than eleven months after the BIA’s final order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final administrative decision).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) imposes a ninety-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen, measured from the agency's prior decision.

Qu v. United States Department of Justice · filed 2008-06-17(c)(2)

We find that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Qu’s motion to reopen as untimely. As the BIA noted, its prior decision was issued in April 2004, but Qu did not file his motion until March 2007, well beyond the ninety-day deadline.. See, e.g., 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) bars a motion to reopen filed more than 90 days after the prior BIA decision unless an exception to the time limit applies.

Di Lin v. Mukasey · filed 2008-06-20(c)(2)

Here, we find that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lin’s motion to reopen as untimely. As the BIA noted, its prior decision was issued in September 1998, but Lin did not file his motion until August 2005, well beyond the 90-day deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Moreover, the BIA properly found that Lin’s motion did not qualify for an exception to the time limitation. See id,.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the final decision, subject to equitable tolling when based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

Ajdin v. Mukasey · filed 2008-06-24(c)(2)

Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), an individual may move to reopen his case, but must generally do so within 90 days of the entry of the final decision in the underlying proceeding. However, the 90-day fil*71ing deadline may be equitably tolled where the motion to reopen is based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) limits an alien subject to a final removal order to one motion to reopen filed within 90 days after the final order, absent an applicable exception.

Polidano-Guerrico v. Mukasey · filed 2008-07-23(c)(2)

An alien who is subject to a final order of removal is limited to filing one motion to reopen removal proceedings, and that motion must be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Because petitioner’s motion to reopen was filed beyond the 90-day deadline, and petitioner has not contended that any exceptions to this time limit apply, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s untimely motion to reopen.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the final administrative decision, absent an applicable exception.

Ying Pan v. Mukasey · filed 2008-07-29(c)(2)

We find that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pan’s motion to reopen as untimely. As the BIA noted, its prior decision was issued in June 2005, but Pan did not file her motion until May 2007, well beyond the 90-day deadline. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) imposes a 90-day deadline for motions to reopen, which may be equitably tolled for ineffective assistance of counsel when the alien shows due diligence.

Sultanyan v. Mukasey · filed 2008-07-31(c)(2)

Sultanyan’s motion to reopen was untimely, but he attempted to show that the ninety-day time period, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), should have been tolled based on the ineffective assistance of prior counsel. ... Determining whether an alien has exercised due diligence is a two-step inquiry. ... In this case, the BIA did not determine when Sultanyan should have been aware that his prior counsel had been ineffective. Because the BIA is in a better position than this court to make that determination in the first instance, we grant review, vacate and remand in order that the BIA may determine (1) when Sultanyan should have been aware of any ineffective assistance on the part of prior counsel; and (2) whether Sultanyan exercised due diligence after the date on which he should have been aware of the asserted defects in his representation.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after the final administrative decision in the proceeding.

Al Roumy v. Mukasey · filed 2008-08-27(c)(2)

Generally, a motion to reopen must be filed “no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen within 90 days of the final removal order, while § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) allows an exception for materially changed country conditions supported by evidence.

Metovic v. Mukasey · filed 2008-08-26(c)(2), (c)(3)(ii)

It is undisputed that his motion to reopen was untimely where it was not filed within 90 days of the agency’s final order of removal issued in October 2004. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA also properly found that Metovic’s motion did not qualify for the changed country conditions exception to the time limitation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). ... Therefore the BIA properly denied the motion to reopen because Metovie failed to submit evidence demonstrating that conditions in Montenegro had deteriorated since his hearing and that any such change in conditions was material to his claim that he would be punished for evading the draft. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

Section 1003.2 requires a motion to reopen based on new evidence to be filed within 90 days, subject to specified exceptions, and gives the BIA broad discretion to reopen proceedings sua sponte that is not reviewable.

Xue You Chen v. U.S. Attorney General · filed 2008-08-28(a), (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3)

Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a) and (c)(1), an alien may move the BIA to reopen a prior removal order based on new evidence. See also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); INA § 240(c)(7)(C)(ii). However, the alien must file the motion no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(A) and (C)(i); INA § 240(c)(6)(A) and (C)(i). This 90-day requirement is “mandatory and jurisdictional, and, therefore, it is not subject to equitable tolling.” ... An exception to the 90-day deadline exists, however, if (a) the motion to reopen is for the purpose of reapplying for relief “based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing;” (b) the motion to reopen is agreed upon by all parties and jointly filed; or (c) the motion to reopen was filed by the INS “in exclusion or deportation proceedings when the basis of the motion is fraud in the original proceeding or a crime that would support termination of asylum.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); INA § 240(c)(7)(C). ... Also under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), the BIA may reopen proceedings in a case in which it has rendered a decision at any time upon its own motion. ... Regardless of whether the BIA’s conclusions were correct, its discretion to refuse to reopen the case sua sponte was so broad as to be non-reviewable. Id.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen removal proceedings to be filed within 90 days after the final order of removal.

Liu v. Attorney General · filed 2008-10-10(c)(2)

The BIA correctly determined that the ineffectiveness claim was untimely, since Liu filed his motion to reopen more than ninety days after the order of removal became final on February 22, 2006. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47)(B) (stating that order becomes final upon affirmance by BIA or expiration of time to seek review by BIA).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after the BIA mails its decision.

Garcia-Gonzales v. Mukasey · filed 2008-10-15(c)(2)

Specifically, the regulations provide that a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days after the mailing of the BIA’s decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). In this case, petitioners’ motion was filed on August 31, 2007, more than 90 days after mailing of the BIA’s August 11, 2006 decision. Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied petitioners’ untimely motion to reopen.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires an alien seeking to reopen proceedings to file the motion within 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Wu v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration · filed 2008-10-16(c)(2)

An alien seeking to reopen proceedings must file his motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There is no dispute that Wu’s August 2007 motion to reopen was untimely where the BIA issued a final order in July 2005.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the final order of removal, and the deadline may be equitably tolled when deception, fraud, or error prevents timely filing and the petitioner acts diligently.

Deeba v. Mukasey · filed 2008-10-24(c)(2)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed almost three years after the BIA’s June 11, 2002 final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must generally be filed within 90 days of the final order of removal), and petitioners did not show they were entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing a motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the final order of removal.

Gongora v. Mukasey · filed 2008-10-24(c)(2)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than five months after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must generally be filed within 90 days of the final order of removal), and petitioners did not demonstrate they were entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing a motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) permits a motion to reopen but generally requires it to be filed within 90 days after the final decision in the underlying proceeding.

Chen v. U.S. Attorney General · filed 2008-10-31(c)(2)

Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), an individual may move to reopen his case, but must generally do so within 90 days of the entry of the final decision in the underlying proceeding.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days.

Sanchez-Rodriguez v. Mukasey · filed 2008-11-05(c)(2)

Petitioners filed their motion to reopen outside the ninety-day period set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Petitioners contend that their untimely motion is excused by changed country conditions in Mexico. Petitioners have failed to present material evidence of changed country conditions in Mexico that are material to their case, and the generalized evidence attached to their motion does not establish a prima facie case of eligibility for CAT relief. See Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir.2005). The BIA, therefore, did not *321abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen within 90 days after the final decision, but the deadline may be equitably tolled for an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim when the applicant satisfies the required procedures and exercises due diligence.

Lin v. Mukasey · filed 2008-11-12(c)(2)

Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the entry of the final decision in the underlying proceeding. However, this time limit may be equitably tolled where the motion *29to reopen is based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Jin Bo Zhao v. INS, 452 F.3d 154, 157-58 (2d Cir.2006). To merit equitable tolling based on ineffective assistance of counsel, an applicant must comply with the procedural requirements set forth in In re Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (B.I.A.1988), and show that he exercised due diligence in pursuing the case during the period of time for which he seeks tolling. Iavorski v. I.N.S., 232 F.3d 124,134-35 (2d Cir.2000).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) limits an alien with a final removal order to one motion to reopen filed within 90 days after the final order.

Barcenas v. Mukasey · filed 2008-11-13(c)(2)

An alien who is subject to a final order of removal is limited to filing one motion to reopen removal proceedings, and that motion must be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA dismissed petitioners’ appeal on April 30, 2007. Petitioner’s motion to reopen was filed on February 4, 2008. Because petitioner’s motion to reopen was filed beyond the 90-day deadline, and petitioner has not contended that any exceptions to this time limit apply, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s untimely motion to reopen.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after the final order of removal.

Arenas-Garcia v. Mukasey · filed 2008-11-14(c)(2)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming the denial of petitioner’s motion to reopen, filed six months after the BIA issued its final decision, as time-barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(I); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (requiring that a motion to reopen be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of the final order of removal).

(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the final administrative decision.

Liu v. Mukasey · filed 2008-11-28(c)(2)

In its January 2005 order, the BIA did not abuse its discretion or violate due process by denying Liu’s subsequent motion to reopen as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen generally must be filed within 90 days of final administrative decision).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after issuance of a final administrative order of removal, subject here to equitable tolling for ineffective assistance of counsel.

Lin v. Mukasey · filed 2008-12-05(c)(2)

An alien seeking to reopen proceedings must file a motion to reopen within 90 days of the issuance of a final administrative order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). However, where ineffective assistance of counsel prevents an alien from presenting his claim, the filing deadline for a motion to reopen may be equitably tolled until the ineffective assistance “is, or should have been, discovered by a reasonable person in the situation.”

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Singh v. Gonzales · filed 2007-05-14(c)(2)

The regulations provide that a party may file a motion to reopen “no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened ...” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to reopen, filed more than 7 years after issuance of the final administrative order in petitioner’s case. See id.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of issuance of the final administrative decision, subject to specified exceptions.

Geogdzhaeva v. Gonzales · filed 2007-08-17(c)(2)

The regulations state that motions to reopen must be filed within 90 days of issuance of the “final administrative decision.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA issued its final order of removal in January 2003, yet Geogdzhaeva did not submit her third motion to reopen until November 2005, well beyond the 90-day filing deadline. Accordingly, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Geogdzhaeva’s motion was untimely.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen removal proceedings to be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Hang Nam Yoon v. Mukasey · filed 2008-08-18(c)(2)

The regulations further state that a motion to reopen removal proceedings must be filed no later than ninety days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). ... Petitioner’s final administrative order of removal was entered on August 9, 2004. Petitioner’s motion to reconsider and reopen was filed on November 7, 2007, more than ninety days after the date on which the final order of removal was entered.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision in the proceeding.

Rosas v. Mukasey · filed 2008-12-15(c)(2)

The regulations provide that a motion to reopen “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion, filed more than a year and a half after the BIA’s July 17, 2006 decision affirming the denial of their applications for cancellation of removal.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) sets a ninety-day deadline for motions to reopen, and an untimely motion is not excused on changed-country-conditions grounds without material supporting evidence.

Sharma v. Mukasey · filed 2008-12-26(c)(2)

Sharma filed her motion to reopen outside the ninety-day period set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). She contends that the untimely motion is excused by changed country conditions in Fiji, but Sharma failed to present material evidence of changed country conditions material to her case, and the generalized evidence and affidavit attached to her motion does not establish a prima facie case of eligibility for asylum-related relief. ... The BIA, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the final administrative order.

Pena v. Mukasey · filed 2008-12-29(c)(2)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Miranda Pena’s motion to reopen to seek adjustment of status as untimely because he did not file the motion within 90 days of the BIA’s prior order. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); see also Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2002).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within ninety days of the final administrative decision.

Singh v. Mukasey · filed 2008-12-31(c)(2)

The motion to reopen was not filed until August 12, 2005, after the expiration of the ninety-day time period on July 13, 2005. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (providing that motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final administrative decision).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after the final order of removal, subject to exceptions not addressed here.

Zheng v. Mukasey · filed 2009-01-08(c)(2)

The BIA properly denied Zheng’s motion to reopen as untimely where it was filed more than ninety days after the final order of removal was issued in his case. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires an alien to file a motion to reopen within 90 days after the final administrative order of removal, subject to the regulation’s exceptions.

Tuosheng Tang v. Mukasey · filed 2009-01-08(c)(2)

An alien seeking to reopen proceedings must file a motion to reopen within 90 days of the issuance of a final administrative order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). This limitation, however, does not apply when the motion to reopen is filed in order to apply for asylum or withholding of removal “based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality or the country to which removal has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and would not have been discovered or presented at the previous proceeding.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). Here, it is undisputed that Tang’s March 2007 motion was untimely where the BIA issued a final order of removal in September 2003. Moreover, the BIA properly found that Tang’s motion did not qualify for an exception to the time limitation. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

Section 1003.2(c)(1) requires reopening evidence to be material and previously unavailable, while § 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen within 90 days.

Lin v. U.S. Attorney General · filed 2009-01-09(c)(1), (c)(2)

A motion to reopen must be filed no later than ninety days after the final administrative decision. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). There are three exceptions by which a movant can circumvent the ninety-day time limit, one of which is relevant to this appeal. The relevant exception provides that the time limit shall not apply if the motion to reopen is “based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii). To meet this exception, a movant must show “that evidence sought to be offered is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing.” Abdi, 430 F.3d at 1149 (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1)).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after the final administrative decision, subject to equitable tolling for ineffective-assistance claims when the movant has exercised due diligence.

Yun Pan v. Mukasey · filed 2009-01-12(c)(2)

A motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days after the date on which a final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). While it is well-established that the time limitation for motions to reopen may be equitably tolled to accommodate claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must demonstrate that he has exercised “due diligence” in vindicating his rights.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the final administrative decision.

Daghlas v. Mukasey · filed 2009-01-22(c)(2)

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion as untimely because it was filed more than five years after the BIA’s final order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must generally be filed within 90 days of the final administrative decision), and petitioners failed to establish that they acted with due diligence once they learned of the alleged ineffective assistance, see Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir.2007) (equitable tolling is available “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts -with due diligence”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the final administrative decision, subject to limited exceptions.

Mignano v. Filip · filed 2009-01-23(c)(2)

With limited exceptions, a motion to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Here, absent an exception to the 90-day time limit, any motion to reopen was due by May 24, 2007 and Mignano’s motion to reopen, filed on June 18, 2007, was untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2); see also Ali, 448 F.3d at 517.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days, subject to § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii)'s exception for asylum or withholding claims based on materially evidenced changed country conditions.

Lian v. Filip · filed 2009-01-27(c)(2), (c)(3)(ii)

The Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and its implementing regulations provide that an individual must file a motion to reopen within ninety days of the issuance of a final administrative order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). These limitations, however, do not apply when the motion to reopen is filed in order to apply for asylum or withholding of removal based on changed circumstances arising in the individual’s country of nationality if he presents material evidence that was unavailable and undiscoverable at the time of his previous hearing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires an alien to file a motion to reopen within 90 days after the final administrative order of removal.

Khatun v. Filip · filed 2009-01-27(c)(2)

An alien seeking to reopen proceedings must file a motion to reopen within 90 days of the issuance of a final administrative order of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Section 1003.2 requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the final administrative order of removal, but creates an exception for reopening to seek asylum or withholding based on qualifying changed circumstances in the country of nationality.

Chen v. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Services · filed 2009-01-27(c)(2) (c)(3)(ii)

The Immigration and Nationality Act and its implementing regulations provide that an individual must file a motion to reopen within ninety days of the issuance of a final administrative order of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). This limitation, however, does not apply when the movant seeks reopening to apply for asylum or withholding of removal based on changed circumstances arising in his country of nationality, if the evidence submitted is material and was unavailable and undiscoverable at the time of his hearing before the IJ. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally limits an alien subject to a final removal order to one motion to reopen filed within 90 days, subject to applicable exceptions.

Kim v. Mukasey · filed 2009-01-28(c)(2)

An alien who is subject to a final order of removal is limited to filing one motion to reopen removal proceedings, and that motion must be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Because petitioners’ motion to reopen was filed beyond the 90-day deadline, and petitioners have not established that any exceptions to this time limit apply, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ untimely motion to reopen.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) limits an alien subject to a final removal order to one motion to reopen filed within 90 days of the final order.

Ortiz-Lopez v. Mukasey · filed 2009-01-29(c)(2)

An alien who is subject to a final order of removal is limited to filing one motion to reopen removal proceedings, and that motion must be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Because petitioner’s motion to reopen was filed beyond the 90-day deadline, and petitioner has not contended that any exceptions to this time limit apply, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s untimely motion to reopen.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally limits an alien subject to a final removal order to one motion to reopen filed within 90 days after the final order.

Cruz-Herrera v. Mukasey · filed 2009-01-29(c)(2)

An alien who is subject to a final order of removal is limited to filing one motion to reopen removal proceedings, and that motion must be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Because petitioners’ motion to reopen was filed beyond the 90-day deadline, and petitioners have not contended that any exceptions to this time limit apply, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ untimely motion to reopen.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after the final administrative decision, subject to equitable tolling when the alien has exercised due diligence.

Panjaitan v. Mukasey · filed 2009-02-05(c)(2)

A motion to reopen “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Although this ninety-day period may be equitably tolled, see Riley v. INS, 310 F.3d 1253, 1258 (10th Cir. 2002), the alien must have exercised due diligence in pursuing his case, Galvez Pineda, 427 F.3d at 838. ... Here, the BIA rendered its final administrative decision on June 30, 2005, and petitioners filed their motion to reopen on October 15, 2007. Their motion was thus clearly untimely.

Subsection (c)(2) requires a motion to reopen before the Board to be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Zhou v. Atty Gen USA · filed 2009-02-18(c)(2)

Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), a party may file a motion to reopen with the Board “no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.”

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed with the Board no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Zhou v. Attorney General of the United States · filed 2009-02-18(c)(2)

Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), a party may file a motion to reopen with the Board “no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened.”

Section 1003.2(c)(2) limits an alien subject to a final removal order to one motion to reopen filed within 90 days, while § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) requires changed country conditions material to the claim for an exception.

Pena v. Holder · filed 2009-02-19(c)(2), (c)(3)(ii)

An alien who is subject to a final order of removal is limited to filing one motion to reopen removal proceedings which must be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final order of removal. ... Because petitioners’ motion to reopen was filed four months beyond the 90-day deadline, the BIA correetly found petitioners’ motion untimely. ... Further, petitioners’ claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) failed to present evidence of changed country conditions in Mexico that are material to petitioners and their circumstances. ... Because petitioners have failed to meet their burden of establishing a prima facie CAT claim to support reopening, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) bars a motion to reopen filed nearly three years after the final order when the applicant does not show changed circumstances.

Sonzeu v. Holder · filed 2009-02-25(c)(2)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Sonzeu’s motion to reopen as untimely because it was filed almost three years after the BIA issued its final orders and Sonzeu failed to demonstrate changed circumstances in Cameroon.

Section 1003.2 generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days, but exempts a motion based on qualifying changed circumstances in the country of nationality or designated deportation country; the court found this exception did not apply.

Fen Fei Wang v. Holder · filed 2009-02-25(c)(2), (c)(3)(ii)

A motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days after the date on which a final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened. ... However, the time limit does not apply to a motion to reopen that is “based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.” ... Wang manifestly fails to meet this test.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) limits an alien subject to a final order of removal to one motion to reopen filed within 90 days, absent an applicable exception.

Guardado v. Holder · filed 2009-03-09(c)(2)

An alien who is subject to a final order of removal is limited to filing one motion to reopen removal proceedings within 90 days after the date of entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Because petitioners’ motion to reopen was filed beyond the 90-day deadline, and petitioners have not contended an exception applies to this time limit, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ untimely motion to reopen.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) limits an alien subject to a final order of removal to one motion to reopen, filed within 90 days after the final order’s entry, absent an applicable exception.

Carranza v. Holder · filed 2009-03-09(c)(2)

An alien who is subject to a final order of removal is limited to filing one motion to reopen removal proceedings, and that motion must be filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(A), (C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). Because petitioners’ motion to reopen was filed beyond the 90-day deadline, and petitioners have not established that any exceptions to this time limit apply, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ untimely motion to reopen.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after the final decision in the underlying proceeding.

Lip Ya Then v. Holder · filed 2009-03-24(c)(2)

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the entry of the final decision in the underlying proceeding.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days unless an applicable exception permits a later filing.

Weng v. Holder · filed 2009-04-07(c)(2)

Because Weng’s May 2007 motion to reopen was filed nearly three years after the BIA’s April 2004 decision, the BIA properly observed that her motion was time-barred unless she could establish an exception to the 90-day filing deadline.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen removal proceedings to be filed within 90 days of the final order.

Bautista v. Holder · filed 2009-04-27(c)(2)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed over seven months after the BIA’s August 5, 2005 order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must generally be filed within 90 days of the final order), and petitioners did not establish that they were entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarrvia, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing a motion to reopen can be equitably tolled “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence”).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen within 90 days of the final decision, subject to possible equitable tolling when based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

Yang v. Holder · filed 2009-06-15(c)(2)

Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), an individual must file a motion to reopen within 90 days of the entry of the final decision in the underlying proceeding. However, this time limitation might be equitably tolled if the motion to reopen is based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the final decision, subject to equitable tolling for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.

Wang v. United States Department of Homeland Security · filed 2009-06-29(c)(2)

Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), an individual must file a motion to reopen within 90 days of the entry of the final decision in the underlying proceeding. However, this time limitation may be equitably tolled where the motion to reopen is based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) limits an alien to one motion to reopen filed within 90 days, while subsection (c)(3)(ii) exempts a motion based on material, previously unavailable changed country conditions.

Lin v. Holder · filed 2009-08-21(c)(2) (c)(3)(ii)

Under the relevant regulations, an alien may file one motion to reopen within 90 days of the date on which a final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened. ... However, the time limit does not apply to a motion to reopen that is “based on changed circumstances arising in the country of nationality or in the country to which deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is material and was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the previous hearing.”

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Di Di Qiu v. Holder · filed 2009-09-16(c)(2)

A motion to reopen must be filed no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision is rendered in the proceedings that the applicant seeks to reopen. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). In this case, Qiu did not file his motion to reopen until more than ten years after the BIA issued its final administrative order.

Subsection (c)(2) imposes a 90-day filing deadline for motions to reopen, subject to applicable exceptions.

Ortiz-Ventura v. Holder · filed 2009-09-28(c)(2)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ortiz-Ventura’s motion to reopen as untimely because the motion was filed more than 23 months after the BIA’s March 31, 2005 order dismissing the underlying appeal, and Ortiz-Ventura failed to establish that an exception to the 90-day filing deadline applied.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires an alien to file a motion to reopen within 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Cheng v. Holder · filed 2009-12-07(c)(2)

An alien seeking to reopen proceedings must file her motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the Board of Immigration Appeals' final decision, subject to applicable exceptions.

Supnet v. Holder · filed 2009-12-18(c)(2)

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Supnet's motion to reopen as untimely because it was not filed within 90 days of the BIA's final decision on Supnet’s appeal, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Supnet failed to establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2007).

Subsection (c)(2) requires an alien to file a motion to reopen within 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Alam v. Holder · filed 2009-12-18(c)(2)

An alien seeking to reopen proceedings must file his motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) permits an alien to file one motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision, subject to applicable exceptions.

Lu v. Holder · filed 2009-12-23(c)(2)

Upon reviewing the record, we find that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Lu’s motions to reopen as untimely because Lu’s February and November 2008 motions were filed more than 90 days after the BIA entered a final order of removal in April 2002. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (providing that an alien seeking to reopen proceedings may file one motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires an alien to file a motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision in the case.

Kong Song Wang v. Holder · filed 2009-12-28(c)(2)

An alien seeking to reopen removal proceedings must file a motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision is rendered in his case. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the final administrative removal order.

Cid v. Holder · filed 2010-01-08(c)(2)

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Rivera Cid’s motion to reopen because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of final administrative removal order), and Rivera Cid did not show that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Singh, 491 F.3d at 1096-97.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) makes a motion to reopen untimely when filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final removal order, absent equitable tolling.

Gonzalez v. Holder · filed 2010-01-08(c)(2)

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Hernandez Gonzalez’s motion to reopen because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Hernandez-Gonzalez did not show he was entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) imposes a 90-day deadline for motions to reopen, absent a relevant exception.

Sanchez-Perez v. Holder · filed 2010-01-15(c)(2)

As Sanchez-Perez filed the motion more than 90 days after the prior BIA order and provided no explanation for any delay or exception from the timing requirement, it was not an abuse of discretion for the BIA to deny the motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the BIA's final decision on the underlying appeal, subject to applicable exceptions.

Duran-Ramirez v. Holder · filed 2010-01-19(c)(2)

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying Duran-Ramirez’s motion to reopen as untimely because it was not filed within 90 days of the BIA’s final decision on his underlying appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Duran-Ramirez failed to establish that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Singh, 491 F.3d at 1096-97.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) imposes a 90-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen after the Board's final decision.

Okafor v. Attorney General of the United States · filed 2010-01-19(c)(2)

Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Okafor’s motion to reopen was untimely under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), as it was filed well more than 90 days after the BIA’s final decision.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after the BIA's final removal order.

Kalkat v. Holder · filed 2010-01-21(c)(2)

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Kalkat’s motion to reopen filed on November 25, 2003, because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. §1003.2(c)(2), and Kalkat did not show that he acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Singh, 491 F.3d at 1096-97.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after the final removal order.

Gasga Sierra v. Holder · filed 2010-01-21(c)(2)

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely petitioners’ motion to reopen because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and petitioners did not show that they acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2007).

Subsection (c)(2) requires an alien to file a motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Dong v. Holder · filed 2010-02-05(c)(2)

An alien seeking to reopen proceedings must file her motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires a motion to reopen to be filed within ninety days of the final order of removal.

Moiny v. Holder · filed 2010-02-11(c)(2)

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely where petitioners filed their April 2005 motion to reopen over two years after the BIA’s final order of removal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (motion to reopen must be filed within ninety days of final order of removal), and where petitioners did not show they acted with due diligence in discovering the alleged deficiencies of their prior counsel.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires an alien to file a motion to reopen within 90 days after the final administrative order of removal.

Hodges v. U.S. Attorney General · filed 2010-02-18(c)(2)

Generally, an alien must file a motion to reopen proceedings “within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Section (c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days after the BIA’s final removal order.

Israelyan v. Holder · filed 2010-02-23(c)(2)

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Israelyan’s motion to reopen because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. §1003.2(c)(2), and Israelyan did not show that she acted with the due diligence required for equitable tolling, see Singh, 491 F.3d at 1096-97.

Section 1003.2(c)(2) generally requires a motion to reopen to be filed within 90 days of the final removal order, subject to equitable tolling when diligence is shown.

Preciado v. Holder · filed 2010-02-23(c)(2)

The BIA acted within its discretion in denying as untimely Chen’s motion to reopen because it was filed more than 90 days after the BIA’s final removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Chen did not show she was entitled to equitable tolling, see Iturribarria, 321 F.3d at 897 (deadline for filing a motion to reopen can be equitably tolled where a petitioner acts with due diligence).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) imposes a 90-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen after a final order of removal.

Zengwei Ye v. Holder · filed 2010-03-17(c)(2)

Because the BIA entered a final order of removal on August 8, 2008, the 90- day deadline for a timely motion to reopen was November 6, 2008. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).

Section 1003.2(c)(2) requires an alien to file a motion to reopen no later than 90 days after the final administrative decision.

Ruiz v. Holder · filed 2010-04-21(c)(2)

Petitioner’s motion to reopen before the BIA is indisputably time-barred, having been filed almost eleven months after the BIA’s order dismissing his appeal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (requiring an alien to file a motion to reopen “no later than 90 days after the date on which the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened”).