no similar opportunity to develop the record. The majority’s denial of a remand for an evidentiary hearing for Yeh cannot be reconciled with Forbess. In addition, the majority ignores the direct instruction in Forbess that a court’s assessment of equitable tolling must be guided by a “flexible, totality-of-the-circumstances approach.” 749 F.3d at 842, 2014 WL 1509025, at *4. Rather than consider the combination of factors alleged by Yeh, the majority erroneously analyzes each of Yeh’s justifications for equitable tolling in isolation. In so doing, the majority ignores Yeh’s principal argument: that the combination of lack of English proficiency, solitary confinement, and mental impairment prevented him from timely filing. See Lott v. Mueller, 304 F.3d 918, 923, 924 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Whalem/Hunt v. Early, 233 F.3d 1146,
recognizing that determinations of whether there are grounds for equitable tolling are highly fact dependent holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling holding that the determination of equitable tolling is  highly fact dependent  and may involve the confluence of numerous factors beyond the prisoners control holding equitable tolling requires fraudulent conduct beyond the nondisclosure itself recognizing that the determination is an equitable one