The Fourth Circuit has determined that “the BIA’s decision to deny equitable tolling presents a mixed question we must review de novo.” The court noted that a “noncitizen needs to act only with ‘reasonable,’ ‘not maximum feasible diligence.’” The court also noted that when a motion to reopen is based on a change in law (in this case, the Supreme Court’s decision in Dimaya), the diligence requirement begins no earlier than the change in law. But even then, the court must ask when the petitioner reasonably could have discovered the change in law, taking into account the petitioner’s financial circumstances and ability to access counsel.
“Still, he discovered his rights just one year after the Court enunciated them. Giving 'due consideration to the reality that many departed aliens are poor, uneducated, unskilled in the English language, and effectively unable to follow developments in the American legal system, we hold Williams could not reasonably have been expected to have filed earlier.”
The full text of Williams v. Garland can be found here:
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/201854.P.pdf
An amended opinion can be found here: