Edin Cekic and Samka Cekic v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that petitioners’ “reliance upon their attorney’s repeated assurances that their case was being pursued” warranted equitable tolling of the period of such communications
• holding that two- year delay between time petitioners learned of expiration of their status and moved to reopen constituted a lack of diligence
• holding that a two year delay between the time petitioners learned of their removal order and filed a motion to reopen constituted a lack of diligence
• holding that one requirement for equitable 19 tolling in showing of due diligence
• holding that although petitioners reasonably relied on their attorney’s assurances that he was actively pursuing their case, they should have known they received ineffective assistance once they “were aware that there was an order of removal against them”
• noting that equitable tolling does not apply unless alien “can affirmatively demonstrate that he exercised reasonable diligence during the time period sought to be tolled”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).