Mezo v. Holder

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the attorney made multiple misrepresentations to the petitioner regarding the status of her appeal
• reviewing BIA’s denial of motion to reopen brought on ineffective-assistance grounds for lack of due diligence
• “Due diligence requires an alien to prove that the delay in filing the motion to reopen was due to an exceptional circumstance beyond his control” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “The clock would start again when Mezo discovered [her prior attorney’s] fraudulence . . . .”
• “[A]t a minimum, a petitioner seeking to resuscitate a time-barred immigration appeal must establish due diligence.” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)
• “[W]e have declined to equitably toll the time period for filing motions to reopen for two reasons: (1) where the petitioner failed to establish prejudice from former counsel’s untimely appeal . . . and (2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).