• Employers
    • Permanent Visas
      • PERM Labor Certifications
    • Temporary Visas
      • E-3 Visas
      • H-1B Employment
        • H-1B1 Visa
      • L-1 Visas
      • J-1 Visas
      • O-1 Visas
      • TN, Canadian/Mexican
  • Employees
    • Nonimmigrant Visa Applications (Consular)
    • National Interest Waivers
  • Entrepreneurs
    • E-1 & E-2 Visas
  • Compliance
    • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Family & Individuals
    • Marriage
    • Deportation, Removal & Asylum
    • Hearings & Appeals
    • Naturalization
    • Students
      • STEM OPT Visas
  • About Us
    • Blog
    • Testimonials
    • Attorneys
      • Philip M. Levin, Founder
      • Don L. Pangilinan, Principal
      • Alec P. Wilczynski, Of Counsel
      • Alexandra Cotroneo, Associate

Levin and Pangilinan PC

U.S. Immigration and Nationality Law

¿Necesitas el sitio web en español?

800.974.2691
Contact Us
  • Employers
    • Permanent Visas
      • PERM Labor Certifications
    • Temporary Visas
      • E-3 Visas
      • H-1B Employment
        • H-1B1 Visa
      • L-1 Visas
      • J-1 Visas
      • O-1 Visas
      • TN, Canadian/Mexican
  • Employees
    • Nonimmigrant Visa Applications (Consular)
    • National Interest Waivers
  • Entrepreneurs
    • E-1 & E-2 Visas
  • Compliance
    • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Family & Individuals
    • Marriage
    • Deportation, Removal & Asylum
    • Hearings & Appeals
    • Naturalization
    • Students
      • STEM OPT Visas
  • About Us
    • Blog
    • Testimonials
    • Attorneys
      • Philip M. Levin, Founder
      • Don L. Pangilinan, Principal
      • Alec P. Wilczynski, Of Counsel
      • Alexandra Cotroneo, Associate

EOIR Director Holds That The Assistant Director For Policy Has The Discretion To Extend The Deadline For A Request For Reconsideration Made Per 8 C.F.R. §1292.13(e), But Not For A Request For Reconsideration Made Per 8 C.F.R. §1292.16(f) Or §1292.17(d). The 30-Day Deadline For A Request For Reconsideration In 8 C.F.R. §§121292.12(e),1292.16(f), And 1292.17(d) Is Otherwise Mandatory And Not Subject To Equitable Tolling. A Request For Reconsideration Per 8 C.F.R. §§ 1292.13(e), 1292.16(f), Or 1292.17(d) Must Demonstrate An Error Of Fact Or Law In The Previous Decision. The Standard Of Review For Administrative Reviews Conducted Under 8 C.F.R. §1292.18 Is De Novo. Unless Overruled By Subsequent Precedent Or Superceded By Statute, Regulation, Or Binding Federal Court Decision, Prior Precedent Decisions Of The BIA Remain Binding In Recognition And Accreditation Proceedings After January 18, 2017, Including Consideration Of Requests For Reconsideration Per §§1292.13(e), 1292.16(f), or 1292.17(d) And Administrative Review Conducted Under § 1292.18. In Addition To Establishing The Requirements For Partial Accreditation, An Organization Seeking Full Accreditation For An Individual Per 8 C.F.R. §1292.12(a)(6) Must Establish That The Individual Possesses “Skills Essential For Effective Litigation.” Such Skills Include, At A Minimum, “The Ability To Advocate A Client’s Position At A Hearing Before An Immigration Judge By Presenting Documentary Evidence And Questioning Witnesses, To Present Oral Arguments Before The Board, And To Prepare Motions And Briefs For Consideration By An Immigration Judge And/Or [The] Board.” Matter Of EAC, Inc., 24 I&N Dec. 556 (BIA 2008), Followed.

July 15, 2020 Philip Levin

On May 22, 2020, Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) Director James R. McHenry (Director), following up on a Policy Memorandum he published October 2, 2019 (PM 20-02), issued a decision in a request for accreditation ruling on when the deadline for the filing of a request to reconsider can be extended, the required grounds and standard of review for such a motion, what precedents are binding thereon, and what skills must be possessed by the person an organization seeks to have accredited. 

Currently, the EOIR Office of Legal Access Programs (OLAP) administers the recognition and accreditation (R&A) program; in October 2019 it approved Bay Area Legal Services, Inc.’s (Applicant’s) application for recognition and extended this benefit to Applicant’s various offices. Applicant also requested that Carlos Betancourt be granted full accreditation; on October 16, 2019, OLAP “disapproved” the request but approved partial accreditation for him. On December 16, 2019, OLAP received a request for reconsideration of the disapproval, which it denied on February 19, 2020. Two days later, the Director notified Applicant that he would review the denial of reconsideration, specifying the following issues to be reviewed: 1) Whether the 30-day deadline for a request for reconsideration per 8 C.F.R. §1292.13(e) (and §1292.16(f) and §1292.17(d)) is subject to equitable tolling and, if so, what circumstances may warrant it; 2) What the appropriate legal standard is for evaluating a reconsideration request per these three regulatory sections; 3) What the appropriate standard of review is for administrative review under 8 C.F.R. §1292.18; and, 4) Whether prior precedents of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) in R&A cases are binding on reconsideration requests pursuant to §§1292.13(e), 1292.16(f) or 129.17(d) and on reviews conducted under §1292.18. An initial footnote explained that regulatory responsibility for the R&A program had been transferred from the BIA to OLAP in 2017, a process which had left open a number of questions related to R&A proceedings, because when the Board oversaw the program, the regulations specifically allowed for appearances by amicus curiae but, after the transfer, the regulations no longer expressly allowed for such appearances. To help address such issues, the Director notified Applicant that it could submit additional filings, including a brief and supplemental evidence and further invited amicus curiae to file pertinent briefs, as well. Applicant failed to file any documentation and one amicus brief was received. The Director affirmed OLAP’s denial of Applicant’s request for reconsideration. 

Director McHenry initially discussed the background of the R&A Programs, explaining that its purpose is to “provide competent and affordable immigration legal services to persons of limited means through reputable nonprofit organizations.” Through the program, EOIR allows qualified non-attorneys to represent non-U.S. citizens before DHS, the immigration courts, and the BIA; organizations recognized by EOIR provide representation through accredited representatives and individuals representing such organizations may receive either full or partial accreditation. An applying entity must specify whether it seeks partial or full accreditation for a prospective representative and “must establish that the individual also possesses skills essential for effective litigation.” Until 2017, oversight of the program within EOIR lay with the Board, which occasionally issued precedent decisions “to provide guidance” for those requesting recognition or accreditation. When the Final Rule effectuating the transfer to OLAP became effective in January 2017, disapprovals of recognition or accreditation requests ( §1292.13(e)); disapprovals of requests for renewal of recognition or accreditation (§1292.16(f)); and, terminations of recognition or accreditation (§1292.17(d)) all became subject to one reconsideration request filed by an applicant within 30 days of the relevant decision. 

Next, in setting forth the issues presented, the Director stated that Applicant’s reconsideration request was subject to the 30-day deadline but was untimely filed. The first question thus raised was “whether there is any basis to extend that deadline and to consider applicant’s request notwithstanding its untimeliness.” It was also noticed that OLAP denied the request as untimely but, in the alternative, denied it on the merits; the question was therefore also raised as to “what such a request must demonstrate in order to warrant consideration on its merits.” As OLAP’s decision was subject to administrative review, another issue was presented regarding “what standard should govern such reviews.” Lastly, explained Director McHenry, the merits of Applicant’s request appear to be controlled by BIA precedent, but a question is raised as to “the continued applicability of that precedent.” 

Addressing untimely requests for reconsideration per 8 C.F.R.§§1292.13(e), .16(f), and .17(d), the Director first noted that, although such requests must be filed within 30 days of the relevant decision, OLAP may, as a matter of discretion, extend the deadline “for reconsideration of the disapproval of a recognition or accreditation request” per 8 C.F.R. §1292.13(a). However, he concluded, no similar regulatory authority exists for reconsidering disapprovals of renewal of recognition or accreditation requests or for termination of recognition or accreditation “on particular bases.” 

As to the issue of equitable tolling, the decision stated that the 30-day deadline appeared to be a traditional claim-processing rule and that some claim processing rules may be subject to such tolling, “which tolls, or pauses, a relevant deadline for a person (or entity) who has diligently pursued his rights but nevertheless failed to file something timely” due to extraordinary circumstances. But, cautioned Directo McHenry, “not all claim-processing rules are subject to equitable tolling.” §1292 provided no authority for an equitable deadline extension, or for any extension at all, except as provided for in § .13(a) for a request for reconsideration of the denial of a request for recognition or accreditation. Nor is there any presumption that equitable tolling should apply to reconsideration requests in R & A proceedings. Further, such tolling is a remedy “founded in equity, and EOIR does not possess inherent non-statutory, free-floating equitable authority.” Thus, although OLAP may, as a matter of discretion, extend the deadline for a reconsideration request regarding the disapproval of a recognition or accreditation request under §1292.12(a), “the deadline for a request for reconsideration is otherwise mandatory.” No other regulation authorizes an extension of the 30-day deadline in §§1292.13(c), .16(f), or .17(d), and “equitable tolling cannot be invoked to extend the deadline.” 

As to requests for reconsideration pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§1292.13(e0, .16(f), and .17(d) that are timely filed, the regulations are silent on what, if anything, an applicant must show to obtain the requested relief. The Director found “no indication” that the reconsideration procedure set forth in the above-referenced 3 sections was meant to deviate from the “well-established standard” that such request “point to an error in the underlying determination, such as an error of fact or law” and there was no basis to conclude that the procedure “was intended to be subject to some other novel, unstated adjudictory parameter.” The opinion thus held that reconsideration requests under §1292.13(e), .16(f), and .17(d) must point to an error of fact or law (or both) in the underlying determination. 

In addressing the standard of review for an administrative review conducted under 8 C.F.R. §1292.18, the Director first noted that the regulations allow for such review so that another entity would be able to review OLAP’s decisions, but do not enumerate the appropriate standard for review. He next stated that R&A adjudications are “largely, if not entirely, based on paper filing or other documentary evidence”; resultingly, both legal and factual determinations are based on the written record. The decision explained that, in R&A proceedings review of a denial of reconsideration is akin to BIA or AAO review of an administrative decision “due to the document-based nature of the underlying record than it is to Board review of an IJ decision. Similarly, the regulations do not bestow any deference upon an OLAP reconsideration decision, which the opinion found “consistent with a de novo standard of review,” as is OLAP’s ability to request additional information on review. As such, Director McHenry held that administrative reviews of reconsideration denials under §1292.18 must use a de novo review standard. 

Regarding the application of Board precedent decisions to R&A proceedings, the decision first mentioned that the transfer of responsibility for such a proceedings from the BIA to OLAP left this exact issue unclear because, by regulation, Board decision are “binding on all officers and employees of DHS or immigration judges”, but R&A adjudicators “are neither officers or employers of DHS  nor immigration judges”; this suggests that BIA precedents are not binding in R&A cases. Yet the very next subsection of this regulation mandates that Board precedents are binding in all proceedings involving the same issue unless modified or overruled by the BIA or Attorney General, which implies “that Board precedents do remain binding in R&A proceedings.” The Director thus held that, in the absence of a “clear and unmistakable” overturning of Board precedents in the R&A arena, particularly as such cases have provided useful guidance for nearly 35 years, relevant BIA precedents, unless overruled or superseded, continue to act as precedents in R&A proceedings involving similar issues. 

As applied to Applicant’s case, with Director McHenry reviewing the reconsideration decision de novo,  the opinion’s legal determinations helped to highlight that Applicant had not identified an error of fact in its reconsideration request; instead, it tacitly asserted a legal error, i.e., that the proof of Mr. Betancourt’s experience demonstrates “skills essential for effective litigation,” thus warranting full accreditation. OLAP had denied the reconsideration request as untimely and did not extend the 30-day deadline, which is not subject to equitable tolling. Therefore, there is no basis to extend the deadline and the Director affirmed OLAP’s decision to deny the request as untimely. 

Finally, Applicant had submitted 12 documents with its initial filing which purported to demonstrate Mr. Betancourt’s essential litigation skills, then resubmitted them with the reconsideration request. These comprised briefs and motions he had prepared between 2002 and 2016. At least 3 skills had to be shown to obtain full accreditation, noted the decision: 1) the ability to advocate a client’s position at an immigration court hearing by presenting documentary evidence and questioning witnesses; 2) the ability to present oral argument before the Board; and, 3) the ability to prepare motions and briefs for consideration by an IJ or the BIA. Yet the record was devoid of his oral advocacy or case presentation skills before adjudicators, which are skills “essential for effective litigation”; similarly, the record was “completely devoid of evidence of any recent training or experience that would demonstrate such skills.” Accordingly, Director McHenry also agreed with OLAP that Applicant did not submit sufficient evidence of Mr. Betancourt’s essential litigation skills that would have warrant full accreditation. Therefore, even if the request for reconsideration had been timely, it would have been appropriately denied on the merits. The denial of the reconsideration request was thus affirmed. Matter of Bay Area Legal Service, Inc., 27 I&N Dec. 837 (Dir. 2020). 

Disclaimer: The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. 

You have questions. We have answers.

Filed Under: BIA, Blog

Contact Us

Recent Blog Posts

  • U.S. Visa Interview Waiver Program: Important 2025 Updates
  • New DOS Guidance on Mandating Social Media Review of all F-1, M-1, and J-1 visa applicants and Possible Revocations: What You Need to Know
  • H-1B LOTTERY FY 2026 AND THE RECENT MODERNIZATION RULE 
  • Birthright Citizenship Under Fire: Trump’s Latest Executive Order Explained
  • BIA Holds That Its Prior Holding In Matter Of Fernandes, 28 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2022), That An Objection To A Noncompliant Notice To Appear Will Generally Be Considered Timely If Raised Prior To The Close Of Pleadings Is Not A Change In Law, And Thus Matter Of Fernandes Applies Retroactively.

Practice Areas

  • Business Immigration
  • Family Immigration
  • Marriage
  • PERM Labor Certification
  • Hearing & Appeals
  • Deportation, Removal, Asylum
  • I-9/Worksite Enforcement

LEAVE A REVIEW

Leave a Review on Google

        

San Francisco Office
930 Montgomery Street
Suite 502
San Francisco, CA 94133

Silicon Valley Office
5201 Great America Parkway
Suite 320
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Los Angeles Office
445 S. Figueroa Street
Suites 2600 & 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071
©2025 Levin and Pangilinan PC. All Rights Reserved.
  • Business Immigration
  • Family Immigration
  • Labor Certification
  • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Hearings & Appeals
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 · XML Sitemap · Sitemap

R-1
TN

The TN nonimmigrant classification allows qualified Canadian and Mexican citizens to enter the U.S. and engage in professional business activities. LPPC will help you navigate through the TN application process by evaluating your eligibility, preparing supporting documentation for your application, and ultimately filing your application. 

B-1

LPPC will guide you through the consular process to receive a B-1 visa for specific short-term business purposes ranging from contract negotiations to seminars and conferences.

O-1

O-1 visas are for persons of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or sports. 

J-1

Administered by the Department of State, the J-1 visa is for students, trainees, academics, researchers, professionals or experts participating in an approved Exchange Visitor program. LPPC will assist you and your sponsor with preparing the necessary paperwork and the consular process so you can begin your program at ease. 

E-1 & E-2

E-1 visas and E-2 visas are for nationals of countries with which the United States has a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation (FCN) or bilateral investment treaty (BIT). If you are a nonimmigrant trader or investor seeking to conduct business operations or develop a new enterprise in the U.S., we will help you file for the appropriate visa. As a recognized expert in this area, Mr. Levin will provide experienced and dependable assistance with E-1 or E-2 visa applications. 

  • E-1: If you are a national of a country that conducts a significant volume of trade with the U.S. (or if you intend to develop trade between the U.S. and your home country) you might be eligible for entry under an E-1 visa. 
  • E-2: The E-2 visa allows investors from treaty countries to enter the U.S. for purposes of directing and developing a business, with all the commitments and risks implicit in entrepreneurial activity. 
L-1

The L-1 visa category is for executives, managers or professionals employed by foreign affiliates of U.S companies. The L-1 visa is divided into two classifications:

  • L-1A Intracompany Transferee Executive or Manager
  • L-1B Intracompany Transferee Specialized Knowledge
H-1B

Many companies in the United States find themselves increasingly dependent on the talent, experience and energy of foreign national workers in professional, technical or specialized occupational fields. These employees typically enter the U.S. on nonimmigrant H-1B visas for “specialty occupations.” 

With extensive experience in business immigration, you can count on LPPC to guide your company or Human Resources department in preparing and filing an H-1B visa petition.

Green Card

Family preservation and reunification is a priority for our firm. Our attorneys have advised and assisted families from all over the world with entry visas, adjustment of status, and other immigration problems. 

  • Immediate Relatives: If you are the spouse, child, or parent of a U.S. citizen, we can help you obtain a green card through an Immediate Relative petition. 
  • Family-Based Preference: If your relative is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, we can assist you with your green card application through one of the family based preference categories.
Fiances

If you are a U.S. citizen and your fiancé/fiancée or spouse is overseas, our office will assist you to navigate the CIS requirements and regulations to have the case approved and then prepare you and your spouse for the interview at the U.S. Embassy. LPPC will also help you find the best ways to resolve any problems you encounter if a waiver is required in your case.

Marriage

Immigration through marriage is a common means of obtaining permanent residence in the U.S.  Since 1991, Philip Levin & Associates has helped hundreds of couples immigrate to the U.S. and build their lives together. 

  • I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status: If you are married to a U.S. citizen, present in the U.S. and eligible to do so, our attorneys will assist you in preparing and filing the necessary I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application in the U.S.
  • Immigrant Visa Consular Processing: If you are married to a U.S. citizen and reside abroad, we will assist you in preparing and filing the IV petition with an Embassy or Consulate-General in your native country. 
  • I-751, Remove Conditions on Residence: If you have been married less than two years at the time your green card was initially approved, our office will help you in the joint petition process to become a permanent resident.