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 concluding 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, holding 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 decided.
The court concluded that Castillo’s 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 that requirement.
- The record did not show that the BIA overlooked or inadequately considered Castillo’s evidence and arguments.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that equitable tolling of immigration filing deadlines requires sustained, reasonable diligence. Personal limitations such as limited education, English proficiency, or legal knowledge will not necessarily excuse a lengthy period of inaction.