The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision Wednesday that clarifies standards for immigration motions to reopen, granting a petition in *Pinilla Perez v. Bondi* and remanding the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals for further consideration.
The court held that the BIA provided insufficient reasons for denying Leonel Pinilla Perez's untimely motion to reopen his removal proceedings. Pinilla had been removed from the United States but sought to reopen his case based on a change in law that he argued entitled him to relief from removal.
Under federal immigration law, noncitizens who receive a final order of removal from the BIA have 90 days to file a motion to reopen their removal proceedings. However, this deadline may be equitably tolled if extraordinary circumstances prevented timely filing and the party seeking tolling acted with reasonable diligence throughout the tolling period.
The central legal question in this case involved what constitutes "reasonable diligence" when a petitioner who has already been removed from the United States files a motion to reopen based on a change in law. The BIA had denied Pinilla's motion after concluding that he failed to act with reasonable diligence, but the Second Circuit found this determination inadequately supported.
The case originated when Pinilla received a final order of removal from the BIA. After the 90-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen had passed, Pinilla filed an untimely motion seeking to reopen his proceedings. He argued that changes in immigration law provided a basis for relief from his removal order and that extraordinary circumstances warranted equitable tolling of the filing deadline.
The BIA denied both Pinilla's motion to reopen and his subsequent motion to reconsider. Pinilla then filed two petitions for review with the Second Circuit: one challenging the denial of his motion to reopen (No. 23-6363) and another challenging the denial of his motion to reconsider (No. 24-3151).
The Second Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Wesley, Lohier, and Merriam, heard oral arguments in October 2025. The court's decision, issued Feb. 5, addresses the standards that immigration authorities must apply when evaluating whether removed individuals have acted with reasonable diligence in seeking to reopen their cases.
While the opinion excerpt does not detail the specific extraordinary circumstances Pinilla claimed or the particular change in law he cited, the decision establishes that the BIA must provide adequate reasoning when denying motions to reopen based on reasonable diligence determinations.
The reasonable diligence standard is particularly significant for individuals who have already been removed from the United States, as they face additional practical challenges in monitoring legal developments and pursuing relief. Immigration law changes frequently, and removed individuals may not immediately learn of new legal precedents or policy shifts that could affect their cases.
Equitable tolling serves as an important safety valve in immigration proceedings, allowing courts to extend deadlines when fairness demands it. The doctrine requires both extraordinary circumstances that prevented timely filing and reasonable diligence by the petitioner throughout the period for which tolling is sought.
The Second Circuit's decision to grant the petition and remand suggests the court found the BIA's analysis of reasonable diligence insufficient under established legal standards. This remand will require the BIA to provide more detailed reasoning for any determination that Pinilla failed to act with reasonable diligence.
Representing Pinilla were Scott Foletta and Jill Applegate from the Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem. The government was represented by Matthew B. George from the Office of Immigration Litigation, under the supervision of Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, and Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director of the Office of Immigration Litigation.
As a result of granting the petition challenging the motion to reopen denial, the Second Circuit dismissed as moot Pinilla's separate petition challenging the BIA's denial of his motion to reconsider.
The decision provides guidance for immigration practitioners and their clients on the standards governing untimely motions to reopen, particularly for individuals who have been removed from the United States. It emphasizes that immigration authorities must provide adequate justification when determining whether extraordinary circumstances and reasonable diligence warrant equitable tolling.
The case will now return to the BIA for reconsideration of Pinilla's motion to reopen consistent with the Second Circuit's opinion. The BIA will need to provide more thorough analysis of whether Pinilla acted with reasonable diligence in seeking to reopen his removal proceedings based on claimed changes in immigration law.