of that new address and to notify Scorteanu of his March 26, 1997 hearing date. Muresan’s subsequent misfeasance and fraud amounted to the type of “exceptional circumstances” contemplated by §§ 242B(c)(3)(A) & (f)(2) of the Act, as material incidents beyond Scorteanu’s control. Section 242B(c)(3)(A) of the Act, directs that an in absentia, order may be rescinded ... (A) upon a motion to reopen filed within 180 days after the date of the order of removal if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances (as defined in subsection (f)(2)) 8 U.S.C. § 1252b(c)(3)(A) (1994). Section 242B(f)(2), provides: The term ‘exceptional circumstances’ refers to exceptional circumstances (such as serious illness of the alien or death of a 1224 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, this court need not decide, in
holding that equitable estoppel requires proof of fraud misrepresentation or affirmative deception recognizing equitable tolling of deadlines and numerical limits on motions to reopen or reconsider during periods when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception fraud or error as long as the petitioner acts with due diligence in discovering the deception fraud or error holding that the act provides the exclusive procedures and remedies for common law causes of action based on allegations of deception fraud and misrepresentation holding that a petitioner must act with due diligence when pursuing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to benefit from equitable tolling of deadlines holding that aedpas time limitation may be equitably tolled where extraordinary circumstances prevent petitioner from filing a timely petition and where petitioner acts with reasonable diligence