Case: 16-60766 Document: 00515615796 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED October 26, 2020 No. 16-60766 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Carlos Alberto Londono-Gonzalez, Petitioner, versus William P. Barr, United States Attorney General, * Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A037 584 356 ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before Higginbotham, Elrod, and Duncan, Circuit Judges. Jennifer Walker Elrod, Circuit Judge: In Londono-Gonzalez v. Whitaker, this court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of Carlos Alberto Londono-Gonzalez’s motion to reopen because Londono-Gonzalez had “committed an offense * Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Attorney General William P. Barr is automatically substituted for former Acting Attorney General Matthew G. Whitaker as Respondent. Case: 16-60766 Document: 00515615796 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/26/2020 No. 16-60766 covered in 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).” 744 F. App’x 898, 899 (5th Cir. 2018). Two years later, the Supreme Court held that even in cases involving aliens who are “removable for having committed certain crimes,” courts of appeals have jurisdiction to consider “constitutional claims or questions of law.” Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062, 1068 (2020) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)). Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded, courts of appeals have jurisdiction to determine whether an undisputed set of facts demonstrates diligence on the part of an alien requesting equitable tolling. See id. In line with that holding, that court granted certiorari in Londono-Gonzalez, vacated the judgment, and remanded “for further consideration in light of Guerrero-Lasprilla.” See Londono-Gonzalez v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 2561 (2020). After remand, we requested and received supplemental briefing. We now address the diligence issue. Carlos Alberto Londono-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Colombia who was removed from the United States as a criminal alien more than twenty years ago, seeks review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings based on its finding that he failed to establish the due diligence necessary to warrant equitable tolling of the 90-day deadline for such motions established by 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C). Londono-Gonzalez was ordered removed from the United States in 2000 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) based on his federal drug trafficking convictions, which were aggravated felonies. In 2016, more than four months prior to the issuance of our decision in Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2016), Londono- Gonzalez moved to reopen his removal proceedings based on the BIA’s decision in Matter of Abdelghany, 26 I. & N. Dec. 254 (2014). In Abdelghany, the BIA addressed the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in INS v. St. 2 Case: 16-60766 Document: 00515615796 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/26/2020 No. 16-60766 Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 326 (2001), and its progeny, including Vartelas v. Holder, 566 U.S. 257, 273–75 (2012), and Carranza-De Salinas v. Holder, 700 F.3d 768, 773–75 (5th Cir. 2012), ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals