tolling applies to . . . limits to filing motions to reopen.”). [If applicable] Similarly, federal courts recognize that the numeric limit on motions is subject to tolling. 452 See Jin Bo Zhao v. INS, F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2006); 282 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2002) Thus, the time Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, and numeric limitations on motions to reconsider at issue in this case are subject to equitable tolling. Respondent Is Diligently Pursuing [Her/His] Rights and Extraordinary Circumstances Prevented Timely Filing of this Motion. The Supreme Court’s decision in constituted an extraordinary circumstance Dimaya that prevented Respondent from timely filing a motion to reconsider and he/she pursued his/her case with reasonable diligence. Equitable tolling of the motion to reconsider deadline is warranted in this case. The Supreme decision in abrogates the Board’s erroneous finding Dimaya that his/her conviction was an aggravated felony under INA § 101(a)(43)(F). This extraordinary circumstance prevented Respondent from timely filing his/her motion to reconsider. was decided on April 17, 2018. Respondent has exhibited the requisite diligence Dimaya both before and after learning of the decision. She/he first learned of the decision on when . Declaration of Respondent. She/he is filing the See instant motion to reopen within days of discovering that [she/he] is not deportable [insert if true] and within 30 days of the Supreme Court decision. As set forth in Respondent’s accompanying declaration, Respondent attempted to challenge the Immigration Judge’s decision
tolling applies to . . . limits to filing motions to reopen.”). [If applicable] Similarly, federal courts recognize that the numeric limit on motions is subject to tolling. See Jin Bo Zhao v. INS, 452 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2006); Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS, 282 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2002) Thus, the time and numeric limitations on motions to reconsider at issue in this case are subject to equitable tolling. Respondent Is Diligently Pursuing [Her/His] Rights and Extraordinary Circumstances Prevented Timely Filing of this Motion. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dimaya constituted an extraordinary circumstance that prevented Respondent from timely filing a motion to reconsider and he/she pursued his/her case with reasonable diligence. Equitable tolling of the motion to reconsider deadline is warranted in this case. The Supreme decision in Dimaya abrogates the Board’s erroneous finding that his/her conviction was an aggravated felony under INA § 101(a)(43)(F). This extraordinary circumstance prevented Respondent from timely filing his/her motion to reconsider. Dimaya was decided on April 17, 2018. Respondent has exhibited the requisite diligence both before and after learning of the decision. She/he first learned of the decision on when . See Declaration of Respondent. She/he is filing the instant motion to reopen within days of discovering that [she/he] is not deportable [insert if true] and within 30 days of the Supreme Court decision. As set forth in Respondent’s accompanying declaration, Respondent attempted to challenge the Immigration Judge’s decision