Opinion of the Court — Horsley v. Executive Office of Immigration Review

This writing

Type: Opinion of the Court
Filed: June 5, 2002
Case: Horsley v. Executive Office of Immigration Review
Case status: Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

Opening text

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

MEMORANDUM * On Petition for Review of an Order of the Executive Office for Immigration Review Tomlin Braxton Horsley (“Horsley”) petitions for review of the decision of the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (“OCAHO”), dismissing as untimely his discrimination claim filed pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that Horsley had not timely filed his claim and that equitable tolling would not excuse his neglect. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(i)(1). The agency’s conclusions of law concerning IRCA are reviewed de novo, with a “certain amount of deference” to reasonable statutory interpretations. Mester Mfg. Co. v. INS, 879 F.2d 561, 565 (9th Cir.1989). We deny the petition for review. The ALJ properly held that Horsley’s OCAHO complaint, filed 917 days after the receipt of the right-to-sue letter, was not filed within the 90-day time limit. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(d)(2). The ALJ also properly found that equitable tolling was not appropriate when Horsley knew and understood that he had to file within 90 days *324 of the receipt of the right-to-sue letter but decide…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.