NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued June 12, 2019 Decided June 19, 2019 Before DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge AMY C. BARRETT, Circuit Judge AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge No. 18‐2981 HERNEL SILAIS, Petition for Review of an Order of the Petitioner, Board of Immigration Appeals. v. No. A 200 567 560 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. ORDER Hernel Silais, a Haitian citizen, seeks review of the denial of his untimely motion to reopen a removal proceeding. Because the Board of Immigration Appeals reasonably concluded that Silais failed to establish a valid reason to toll the 90‐day deadline for his motion, we deny the petition for review. This case is before us for a third time. Silais entered the United States in 2011 and requested asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. He claimed that he feared persecution by the Chimères (an armed, politically affiliated gang) if returned to Haiti. After a hearing, the Immigration Judge No. 18‐2981 Page 2 denied relief because of inconsistencies in Silais’s testimony and a lack of corroborating evidence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). Specifically, the IJ faulted Silais for failing to attach affidavits from family members or coworkers that would corroborate his account of his run‐ins with the Chimères and for failing to provide contemporaneous medical records supporting his claim that he need18‐2981ed treatment for injuries. The Board upheld that decision in 2015, agreeing that Silais had not provided—or adequately explained the absence of—corroborating evidence for these critical aspects of his claim. Silais petitioned for review, to no avail. Silais v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2017). To Silais’s argument that the IJ erred by not warning him in advance that particular corroborating evidence would be needed, we responded that a statute—the REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii)—gives effective notice to all petitioners that the IJ may require corroborating evidence or demand an explanation for its absence at a hearing. Id. at 745–46 (citing Darinchuluun v. Lynch, 804 F.3d 1208, 1216 n.21, 1216–17 (7th Cir. 2015)). More than 100 days after we issued our opinion, and two years after the Board’s underlying decision, Silais filed a motion to reopen or reconsider his case. But a motion to reconsider must be filed within 30 days of the Board’s mailing of its decision, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2), and a motion to reopen must be filed within 90 days of the entry of the challenged final administrative decision, id. § 1003.2(c)(2). Silais nonetheless argued that (1) a 2015 change in Board precedent warranted reopening under the Board’s sua sponte power, see id. § 1003.2(a); and (2) the lack of meaningful advance notice that particular corroborating evidence would be required at the IJ hearing should equitably toll the deadline for later seeking to reopen. Silais further contended that the Board should reopen his case to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals