Neves v. Holder

How courts have described this case

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

• assuming without deciding that the time and number limits applicable to motions to reopen are subject to equitable tolling
• explaining equitable tolling as \extend[ing] statutory deadlines in extraordinary circumstances for parties who were prevented from complying with them through no fault or lack of diligence of their own\
• affirming the denial of a motion to reopen where the petitioner failed to provide any details regarding “the dates or frequency of [his] contacts” with his attorney over a three-year period between the decision and his discovery of the ineffective assistance
• “[E]quitable tolling is a rare remedy to be applied in unusual circumstances, not a cure-all for an entirely common state of affairs.” (quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).