Case Explained: Non-Argument Calendar OSCAR GARCIA-ISLAS v. U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-06-17 The eleventh-circuit denied the petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order that rejected Oscar Garcia-Islas’s motion to reopen his removal proceedings as untimely. The court affirmed the BIA’s decision, holding that Garcia-Islas failed to demonstrate the reasonable diligence required to equitably toll the statutory 90-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen under INA § 240(c)(7)(C)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i). The court applied the standard that equitable tolling is an extraordinary remedy available only when untimely filing results from extraordinary circumstances beyond the movant’s control and unavoidable even with diligence. While acknowledging that ineffective assistance of counsel can support an equitable tolling claim, the court found that Garcia-Islas did not explain why he waited three and a half years between receiving notice of the BIA’s 2020 dismissal order in December 2020 and filing his motion in July 2024. The record established that Garcia-Islas was aware of the adverse ruling by late 2020 and failed to seek relief or explain the delay during the intervening years, thereby failing to meet the requirement for reasonable diligence. Additionally, the court noted it could not review the underlying 2020 dismissal order because Garcia-Islas did not petition for review of that specific decision at the time. The practical consequence is that the BIA’s denial of the motion to reopen remains in effect, and Garcia-Islas’s removal proceedings are not reopened; consequently, he remains subject to the original removal order issued by the immigration judge. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.