Page:Ovalles v. Rosen (17-60438) (2021) Opinion.pdf/4

 816–17 (5th Cir. 2017); accord Guerrero-Lasprilla, 822 F. App’x at 256. Ovalles argues in his supplemental briefing that the review should be entirely de novo because “applying law to facts results in a legal conclusion.” But we see no reason to depart from the well-established formulation of the standard of review for motions to reopen in this circuit. Accord Guerrero-Lasprilla, 822 F. App’x at 256 (rejecting a similar argument).

In order to equitably toll the 90-day time period to file a statutory motion to reopen under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7), an alien must demonstrate that (1) he “has been pursuing his rights diligently” and (2) an extraordinary circumstance prevented him from timely filing. Lugo-Resendez, 831 F.3d at 344. An intervening legal change can constitute an extraordinary circumstance. See Londono-Gonzalez, 978 F.3d at 968; accord Guerrero-Lasprilla, 822 F. App’x at 256–57. Ovalles contends that the 90-day time limit for filing his second motion to reopen should be tolled until he learned of the Lugo-Resendez decision in December 2016. But this court recently concluded that Lugo-Resendez did not constitute an intervening change in binding precedent that satisfies the “extraordinary circumstance” element. Londono-Gonzalez, 978 F.3d at 968. This is because Lugo-Resendez itself recognized that, “[d]espite numerous opportunities to do so,” the Fifth Circuit had “not decided whether equitable tolling applies to the 90-day deadline for filing a motion to reopen under § 1229a(c)(7).” Lugo-Resendez, 831 F.3d at 343. Thus, “Lugo-Resendez resolved an open question” and was not an intervening change in binding precedent. Londono-Gonzalez, 978 F.3d at 968. “Moreover, uncertain legal terrain does not create an obstacle that stands in the way of an individual meeting the motion to reopen deadline.”