“The 15-Day Rule” for Protection Applications and Waiver by Inattention:
A Comprehensive Commentary on Chavez-Govea v. Bondi, 10th Cir. (2025)

1. Introduction

Chavez-Govea v. Bondi is a precedential decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that squarely addresses two recurring procedural questions in removal (deportation) proceedings:

1. Whether a 15-day filing deadline for an asylum/withholding/Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) application is “reasonable” under the governing regulations; and
2. Whether an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) must grant a continuance when the non-citizen’s failure to meet the deadline stems from his own inattention.

Petitioner Simon Chavez-Govea, a Mexican national, conceded removability but initially expressed no interest in relief beyond possible voluntary departure. After missing the 15-day deadline he sought additional time, claiming confusion. The IJ found waiver, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed, and the Tenth Circuit denied Mr. Chavez-Govea’s petition for review.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Reasonableness of 15-Day Deadline: The Court held that, given the IJ’s notice, language interpretation, offer to explain the application, and provision of a pro bono list, a 15-day deadline for filing Form I-589 was reasonable.
• Continuance Standard (“Good Cause”): A continuance may be denied when the only justification is the applicant’s earlier inattention; such circumstances fail to demonstrate “good cause” under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29.
• Waiver: Failure to comply with the deadline, after clear warning, constitutes waiver of the right to seek asylum, withholding, or CAT relief.
• Right to Counsel: No deprivation occurred because the IJ advised the right to retain counsel, supplied a pro bono list, and Petitioner affirmatively chose to proceed pro se.
• Due Process Claims: The IJ adequately developed the record; thus, no procedural due process violation was found.
• Motion to Reopen Mootness: Once the earlier BIA decision was vacated by the Tenth Circuit, Petitioner’s pending motion to reopen that decision became moot.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Singh v. Bondi, 130 F.4th 848 (10th Cir. 2025)
   Reconfirmed the trio of protection forms (asylum, withholding, CAT) available in removal proceedings. Chavez-Govea adopted this baseline.
2. Foroglou v. Reno, 241 F.3d 111 (1st Cir. 2001)
   First Circuit recognized an IJ’s power to impose reasonable deadlines. The Tenth Circuit cited Foroglou to anchor the notion that “reasonableness” controls, but tailored the analysis to its own circuit standards.
3. Banuelos v. Barr, 953 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2020)
   Articulated the abuse-of-discretion review framework for BIA procedural decisions. This standard frames the entire opinion.
4. Jimenez-Guzman v. Holder, 642 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 2011)
   Confirmed wide IJ discretion over continuances; cited for applying the same deferential lens here.
5. BIA Precedents – In re R-C-R-, 28 I.&N. Dec. 74 (BIA 2020) & Matter of Sibrun, 18 I.&N. Dec. 354 (BIA 1983)
   R-C-R- upheld a denial of an extension after advanced warning; Sibrun sets the “diligent good-faith effort” requirement. Both reinforced that mere neglect cannot justify more time.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Court employed a two-step framework:

1. Was the 15-day deadline objectively reasonable?
   The Court weighed: (a) complexity of Form I-589; (b) Petitioner’s language needs and the IJ’s provision of a live interpreter; (c) advance notice that failure to file would constitute waiver; and (d) availability of pro bono legal resources. Collectively these factors made the timeframe reasonable.
   Key move: The Court shifted the focus from form complexity in the abstract to the practical assistance actually offered.
2. Did the IJ abuse discretion in denying a continuance?
   Under § 1003.29, “good cause” must be shown. Admission of “not paying attention” equated to lack of diligence, foreclosing “good cause.” The IJ even explored the merits to ensure fundamental fairness before denying further time—a step the Court praised as extra cautious.

3.3 Impact on Future Cases

• “15-Day Rule” Cemented: While not mandatory in every case, the Court signals that 15 days is presumptively reasonable when accompanied by robust notice and interpretation. Other circuits may look to it as persuasive authority.
• Elevated Diligence Requirement: Litigants can no longer rely on a generalized assertion of confusion; they must demonstrate concrete, diligent steps.
• Continuances Scrutinized: The opinion tightens the interpretation of “good cause,” aiding IJs in docket management and deterring strategic delay.
• Pro Se Caveats: Although the Court confirmed procedural protections (interpreters, pro bono lists), it implicitly reminds practitioners to advise clients that the calendar is unforgiving.
• Administrative Efficiency vs. Access: The decision may influence policy debates about providing government-funded counsel or expanding orientation programs for detained non-citizens.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Asylum / Withholding / CAT Relief

Three related, but distinct, forms of protection from removal. Asylum offers a path to lawful status; withholding is mandatory protection with fewer benefits; CAT deferral bars removal to countries where torture is more likely than not.

Form I-589

The application for all three protections. Requires narrative description of past persecution or feared harm.

Continuance

An IJ-granted postponement of a hearing. Must satisfy “good cause,” meaning the request is reasonable, necessary, and not due to the applicant’s own negligence.

Abuse-of-Discretion Review

An appellate court defers to the agency unless the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or without rational explanation.

Waiver

Voluntary relinquishment of a known right. Here, missing a clearly explained deadline constitutes waiver.

Motion to Reopen vs. Motion to Remand

A motion to reopen asks the BIA to re-examine a final decision due to new evidence; a motion to remand is filed while an appeal is pending so that the IJ can consider new facts. Timing dictates which label applies.

Vacatur

When a higher court sets aside (nullifies) an agency’s decision, rendering it without legal effect.

5. Conclusion

Chavez-Govea v. Bondi establishes a clear blueprint for assessing filing deadlines and continuance requests in immigration court. By validating a 15-day deadline and holding that mere inattention does not equal “good cause,” the Tenth Circuit:

• Empowers IJs to run more efficient dockets;
• Places a premium on applicant diligence and attentiveness;
• Clarifies that procedural safeguards—translation, notice, pro bono lists—satisfy due process without creating an affirmative duty to furnish government-paid counsel; and
• Signals that motions to reopen become moot when the underlying decision is vacated, preserving judicial economy.

Practitioners must now counsel clients that deadlines are real, waivable rights vanish quickly, and “I was confused” is no longer a safety net. Conversely, agencies should ensure that the robust notice and assistance found sufficient here are consistently replicated to withstand appellate scrutiny.