It was quite impossible for his attorney to timely file his appellate brief. However, even if the errors of his counsel had contributed to the delay, Zetino’s due process claim would still fail. Unlike both Singh and Rojas-Garcia, Zetino cannot point to anyone but himself to explain the untimeliness of his brief. We cannot conclude that by missing the deadline he had successfully extended he somehow deprived himself of due process. To hold to the contrary would mean that when the BIA enforced the previously extended filing deadline known to the petitioner the proceeding became fundamentally unfair. Such a holding would be contrary to existing due process jurisprudence addressing filing deadlines. See, e.g., United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 101, 105 S.Ct. 1785, 85 L.Ed.2d 64 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, we have held an alien’s due
holding that 18month delay in filing forfeiture action did not violate due process holding that doctrine does not violate due process holding that warning letter that incorrectly stated penalty for reentry did not violate due process holding that a filing deadline under federal land policy and management act carrying a penalty of an automatic forfeiture of a mining claim did not violate due process holding that the act does not violate separation of powers is not void for vagueness and does not violate principles of due process by allowing a victim veto precluding application of the act