“provides that in exceptional circumstances, a statute of limitations ‘may be extended for equitable reasons not acknowledged in the statute creating the limitations period.’ ” Neverson v. Farquharson, 366 F.3d 32, 40 (1st Cir.2004)(quoting David v. Hall, 318 F.3d 343, 345-46 (1st Cir.2003)). This Circuit has yet to address the question of “whether the BIA has either the authority or the obligation” to apply equitable tolling in the immigration context. Guerrero-Santana, 499 F.3d at 93. What is well-established, however, is that the doctrine of equitable tolling should be “sparingly invoked.” Jobe v. INS, 238 F.3d 96, 100 (1st Cir.2001) (en banc). Equitable tolling is generally unavailable to excuse a party who has failed to exercise due diligence. See Beltre-Veloz, 533 F.3d at 11 (<HOLDING>); Jobe, 238 F.3d at 101 (stating that
holding filing of motion for reconsideration does not toll the 30day deadline for filing petition for review holding that equitable tolling is applicable only in extreme cases noting that courts have been generally unforgiving when a late filing is due to the failure to exercise due diligence in preserving legal rights holding that a prisoner had failed to demonstrate diligence for purposes of equitable tolling for the same reason that he had failed to show diligence to invoke the statute of limitations under  2255f4 where he had waited several years before pursuing expungement of his disciplinary actions holding that aliens failure to exercise due diligence in not inquiring into immigration status for eight years despite knowing that removal proceedings had commenced precluded equitable tolling of deadline for filing motion to reopen holding that the 180day filing deadline applicable to motions to reopen from removal orders filed in absentia is not jurisdictional