Cases from cite.case.law:

BING QUAN LIN, v. U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,, 881 F.3d 860 (11th Cir. 2018)

. . . (no'appeal)[,] This will be denied as untimely [and] because of previously filed motions[.] 8 CFR § 1008.23 . . .

MARISCAL- SANDOVAL, v. E. LYNCH,, 658 F. App'x 347 (9th Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 1008.23(b)(2) (a motion to reconsider must specify errors of fact or law in a prior decision); Avila-Sanchez . . .

HABIB, v. E. LYNCH,, 652 F. App'x 528 (9th Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 1008.23(b)(3). Reviewing the BIA’s determination for abuse of discretion, we deny the petition. . . .

MEDRANO- GAYTAN, a k a v. E. LYNCH,, 641 F. App'x 255 (4th Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 1008.23(b)(1) (2015). . . .

GUANG LIN CHANG, v. U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,, 643 F. App'x 864 (11th Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 1008.23(b)(4)©; Jiang, 568 F.3d at 1256-57. . . .

GODFREY, v. E. LYNCH,, 811 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 1008.23(a) (authorizing party to submit motion to reconsider or reopen “prior to the final order . . .

MATA- MENDOZA, v. E. LYNCH,, 624 F. App'x 616 (9th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 1008.23(b)(4)(iii)(A)(l), and Mata-Mendoza failed to show the due diligence necessary for equitable . . .

RAMOS- CARRILLO, v. E. LYNCH,, 614 F. App'x 556 (2d Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 1008.23(b)(3). . . .

PATINO- ORTIZ, v. H. HOLDER, Jr., 593 F. App'x 696 (9th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 1008.23(b) because the regulation “applies only to a person who departs the United States while he . . .

LISBOA, Jr. v. H. HOLDER, Jr., 570 F. App'x 468 (6th Cir. 2014)

. . . . §§ 1003.2(a) (granting power to Board), 1008.23(b)(1) (granting power to immigration judge). . . .

MENENDEZ- ORELLANA, v. H. HOLDER, Jr., 554 F. App'x 626 (9th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 1008.23(b)(1), and Menen-dez-Orellana failed to establish that he was unable, “through no fault of . . .

BEAD, v. H. HOLDER, Jr., 703 F.3d 591 (1st Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 1008.23(b)(1). . . .

OWENS, v. H. HOLDER, Jr., 475 F. App'x 18 (4th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 1008.23(b)(3) (2012). . . .

PEREZ BARRIOS, v. H. HOLDER, Jr., 474 F. App'x 568 (9th Cir. 2012)

. . . filed the motion more than twelve years after entry of his final administrative order, see 8 C.F.R. 1008.23 . . .

MUSANGU, v. H. HOLDER, Jr., 474 F. App'x 364 (4th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 1008.23(b) (2012). . . .

MEHMEDI- AJVAZOSKA, v. H. HOLDER, Jr. U. S., 471 F. App'x 290 (5th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 1008.23(b)(4)(ii). . . .

MORALES, v. U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,, 478 F. App'x 561 (11th Cir. 2012)

. . . . §§ 1003.2(c)(2), 1008.23(b)(1), (3). . . .

FERRARI- COCK, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF UNITED STATES,, 487 F. App'x 728 (3d Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 1008.23(b)(3) (motion filed with IJ). . . .

RAWAL, v. H. HOLDER, Jr. U. S., 476 F. App'x 768 (5th Cir. 2012)

. . . . §§ 1008.23(b)(3), 1208.4(b)(3)(h). Thus, the BIA committed no legal error. . . .

SINGH, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF UNITED STATES,, 452 F. App'x 132 (3d Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 1008.23(b)(1). . . .

DONG, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF UNITED STATES, 427 F. App'x 198 (3d Cir. 2011)

. . . . § 1008.23(b)(3), “[a] motion to reopen will not be granted unless the Immigration Judge is satisfied . . .

XIU ZHEN ZHENG, v. H. HOLDER, Jr., 353 F. App'x 650 (2d Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 1008.23(b)(4)(iii)(B) (providing that, “[a] motion to reopen exclusion hearings on the basis that . . .

CASTILLO- PERALES, v. B. MUKASEY, U. S., 298 F. App'x 366 (5th Cir. 2008)

. . . This court has already held that the BIA’s interpretation of sections 1008.23(b)(1) and 1003.2(d) is . . .

ZAYTSEVA, v. U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,, 284 F. App'x 612 (11th Cir. 2008)

. . . . §§ 108.5(a)(2), 1008.23(b)(3). . . .

SHAMEEM S. v. B. MUKASEY,, 270 F. App'x 512 (9th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 1008.23(b)(1) (an alien seeking to reopen proceedings must file the motion to reopen no later than . . .

GULED, v. B. MUKASEY, v. B., 515 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 1008.23(b)(8)); Eta-Ndu v. . . .

IASU, v. SMITH, U. S. B. In-, 511 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 1008.23(b)(1). We cannot predict what an IJ or the BIA might do if a motion to reopen is filed. . . .

OLUFUNMI O. v. B. MUKASEY,, 256 F. App'x 806 (7th Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 1008.23(b)(1), which requires that a motion to reopen be filed within 90 days of a final administrative . . .

DARRAGJATI, v. B. MUKASEY, U. S., 254 F. App'x 45 (2d Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 1008.23(b)(2); see also In re Cerna, 20 I. & N. Dec. 399, 402 n. 2 (BIA 1991). . . .

JAFFER, v. R. GONZALES,, 235 F. App'x 108 (4th Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 1008.23(b)(l)(iv) (2007). . . .

IVANOV v. GONZALES,, 476 F.3d 607 (8th Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 1008.23(b)(3). See Hailendchael, 454 F.3d at 884; see generally INS v. . . .