Background
Alexis H. Moriano-Ospina, a Colombian citizen, entered the United States with his family in 2008 at age twelve. The family received Notices to Appear that omitted the hearing date and time. After Moriano-Ospina’s mother conceded removability, the family unsuccessfully sought asylum and withholding of removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial of relief in 2011, when Moriano-Ospina was fifteen, and the Fifth Circuit later denied judicial review.
Moriano-Ospina married a U.S. citizen in 2021. After ICE detained him during a routine check-in in March 2025, he consulted counsel and moved to reopen his removal proceedings so he could seek cancellation of removal. Although the statutory deadline for such a motion had expired years earlier, he sought equitable tolling based on his youth when the removal order became final and his lack of knowledge about reopening. The BIA found neither the required extraordinary circumstances nor reasonable diligence and declined to reopen the case on its own motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit denied the petition insofar as it challenged the BIA’s rejection of equitable tolling. The court held that the BIA did not abuse its discretion because Moriano-Ospina did not explain how his age prevented him from filing throughout the ensuing fourteen years. His youth might have explained an initial failure to act, the court reasoned, but did not by itself account for the full delay.
The court also concluded that Moriano-Ospina’s lack of awareness of possible legal relief did not establish reasonable diligence. He identified no efforts to investigate reopening during the years before he retained counsel in 2025. The court dismissed the remaining challenge for lack of jurisdiction because a BIA decision declining to reopen proceedings sua sponte is generally unreviewable, and Moriano-Ospina did not establish that a recognized exception for legal or constitutional error applied.
Key Takeaways
- A petitioner seeking equitable tolling of the 90-day deadline for a motion to reopen must show both reasonable diligence and an extraordinary circumstance that prevented timely filing.
- Youth when a removal order becomes final does not, without a specific causal explanation, justify many years of delay after the petitioner reaches adulthood.
- Ignorance of available legal relief does not establish equitable tolling, and the Fifth Circuit generally lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s refusal to reopen proceedings sua sponte.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the fact-intensive showing required to equitably toll the deadline for reopening immigration proceedings. A petitioner must connect the asserted obstacle to the entire period of delay and demonstrate concrete efforts to pursue available rights.
It also reinforces the narrow scope of judicial review over the BIA’s sua sponte reopening authority. Merely asserting exceptional circumstances does not create appellate jurisdiction; the petitioner must identify a reviewable legal or constitutional error.