Immigration ยท Primary-source case analysis

Guerrero-Lasprilla: Courts May Review Due-Diligence Questions in Equitable Tolling Claims

Decision: Supreme Court of the United States, Nos. 18-776 and 18-1015, decided March 23, 2020. Document: Supreme Court merits opinion.

Guerrero-Lasprilla defines the judicial-review safety valve for constitutional claims and questions of law when other INA provisions restrict review because of criminal convictions.

Late motions to reopen

Pedro Guerrero-Lasprilla and Ruben Ovalles were ordered removed after drug convictions. Years later, each moved to reopen after intervening law created a possible avenue for discretionary relief. They sought equitable tolling of the 90-day deadline and argued that they had pursued relief with the diligence the doctrine requires.

The Fifth Circuit declined review

The Board denied reopening for lack of due diligence. The Fifth Circuit treated the diligence question as factual and concluded that the criminal-alien review bar deprived it of jurisdiction, notwithstanding section 1252(a)(2)(D)'s preservation of constitutional claims and questions of law.

Applying law to settled facts is a question of law

The Supreme Court held that 'questions of law' includes applying a legal standard to undisputed or established facts. Judicial usage, the presumption favoring review of administrative action, the surrounding statutory text, and Congress's effort to preserve an adequate substitute for habeas review supported that interpretation.

Disposition and limit

The Court vacated both Fifth Circuit judgments and remanded so the due-diligence challenges could be considered. The holding concerned reviewability; it did not decide whether either petitioner actually exercised sufficient diligence or deserved reopening.

Key takeaways

Discuss the procedural record

Mission X Trial Lawyers represents clients in California. Call (949) 343-9735 or email office@mcxlegal.com.