Flat Tire Made Him 5 Minutes Late. Court Sides With Him.

What if you missed your immigration court hearing by five minutes — and you have almost no paperwork to prove why? That is exactly what happened to Angel Danilo Trigueros Quizar, a Guatemalan asylum seeker living in Sparks, Nevada. In September 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in his favor, sending his case back for a new review.

What happened in court

Trigueros Quizar got a flat tire on the way to his 1:00 p.m. hearing on September 1, 2023. He stopped at a nearby shop called Hooten Tire Company, got an emergency repair in about 15 minutes, and arrived at the Reno immigration court at 1:05 p.m. — five minutes late. The immigration judge had already ordered him removed in absentia (meaning: removed because he did not appear). Trigueros Quizar filed a motion to reopen his case, arguing the flat tire was an "exceptional circumstance" beyond his control. As evidence, he submitted a receipt from Hooten Tire — but it was dated September 21, 2023, for a new set of tires he bought later as a thank-you to the shop. The immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) both denied his motion, saying the receipt did not prove a flat tire on the day of the hearing and that he had not submitted a formal sworn affidavit.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed. Writing for the majority, Judge Owens held that the agency made two legal errors. First, the BIA wrongly suggested that Trigueros Quizar — who represented himself without a lawyer — was required to file a separate affidavit sworn under penalty of perjury. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, people who represent themselves (called "pro se" petitioners) are not required to submit a formal affidavit. Second, the court held that the agency cannot demand corroborating documents when deciding a motion to reopen, because these motions are decided on paper without a live hearing. The court's existing rule — sometimes called the "deem-true rule" — says the agency must accept a petitioner's factual statements as true unless they are "inherently unbelievable." The immigration judge had already found Trigueros Quizar's story was not inherently unbelievable. That should have been enough. Judge VanDyke dissented, arguing the deem-true rule has no basis in the law's text and conflicts with Supreme Court precedent — and that the majority went even further than the rule requires by telling the agency to ignore evidence the petitioner himself submitted that raised credibility questions.

Why this matters for your case

If you missed an immigration court hearing and received an in absentia removal order (a deportation order issued because you were not there), you may be able to file a motion to reopen. This ruling clarifies that you do not need a lawyer-drafted sworn affidavit or a perfect paper trail to meet your burden of proof — especially if you are representing yourself. Your written explanation, submitted in the motion itself, must be taken seriously by the agency as long as your story is not obviously impossible or contradictory. The case is Trigueros Quizar v. Blanche, No. 24-4847 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2026), and it applies in the nine states covered by the Ninth Circuit: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

What to do

• If you have an in absentia removal order, act quickly. Motions to reopen based on exceptional circumstances must generally be filed within 180 days of the removal order.
• Write down exactly what happened — when you left home, what caused the delay, who you spoke to, and what time you arrived. Your written account in the motion itself counts as evidence under Ninth Circuit rules.
• Gather any supporting documents you do have, even imperfect ones: receipts, photos, text messages, witness names. They help even if they are not perfect proof.
• Contact an immigration lawyer as soon as possible. Motions to reopen have strict deadlines and procedural rules that vary by situation.

A full breakdown of this topic — in our guide “Immigration Court Rulings”.