Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Roberto Castillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, was removed to Mexico in 1999. He reentered the United States without authorization in 2004.
In 2025, Castillo moved for reconsideration of his 1999 removal order based on the Fifth Circuit’s 2001 decision in United States v. Chapa-Garza. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied the motion after determining that Castillo had not shown the reasonable diligence required for equitable tolling, and Castillo petitioned the Fifth Circuit for review.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review, applying the highly deferential abuse-of-discretion standard governing the BIA’s denial of reconsideration. The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying equitable tolling.
Castillo did not seek legal consultation concerning his removal order until 2023, 22 years after Chapa-Garza was issued. The court concluded that his evidence concerning his education, English-language ability, lack of legal training, and the advice he received when removed in 1999 did not establish reasonable diligence during that period. It also rejected his contention that the BIA inadequately considered his evidence or arguments.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen seeking equitable tolling must demonstrate reasonable diligence in pursuing relief.
- Waiting 22 years after the asserted change in law before seeking legal consultation did not satisfy the diligence requirement on this record.
- The BIA adequately considered Castillo’s evidence and arguments and did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the demanding diligence requirement for equitable tolling of deadlines governing immigration motions. Personal barriers such as limited education, limited English proficiency, and lack of legal training will not necessarily excuse a prolonged failure to investigate or pursue available relief.
For immigration practitioners, the ruling highlights the importance of documenting concrete and timely efforts to obtain advice and challenge a removal order after a potentially favorable change in law.