USCA11 Case: 22-11691 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 06/28/2023 Page: 1 of 5 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-11691 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ JOSE C. FLORES-EVANGELISTA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A087-675-370 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-11691 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 06/28/2023 Page: 2 of 5 2 Opinion of the Court 22-11691 Before WILSON, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: An Immigration Judge denied Jose C. Flores-Evangelista’s application for withholding of removal under § 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c). The Immigration Judge concluded that Flores-Evangelista had not sufficiently established that his life or freedom would be threatened if he were to return to Mexico, as required under § 241(b)(3). He also concluded that Flores- Evangelista failed to establish that he had been tortured in Mexico or would likely be tortured if he were to return to Mexico, as required under the Convention. Accordingly, Flores-Evangelista was ordered removed to Mexico. He appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals by filing a Form EOIR-26. That form instructed him to “[s]tate in detail the reason(s) for this appeal” and to “clearly explain the specific facts and law on which you base your appeal of the Immigration Judge’s decision.” The form warns, accompanied by a large exclamation point, that the “Board may summarily dismiss your appeal if it cannot tell from this Notice of Appeal, or any statements attached to this Notice of Appeal, why you are appealing.” Flores- Evangelista stated only that his “[a]ttorney did not present USCA11 Case: 22-11691 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 06/28/2023 Page: 3 of 5 22-11691 Opinion of the Court 3 withholding matter” and “did not present police report given to her to the Court.” The form also asked whether he intended to file a separate brief or statement. The form warned, with another large exclamation point, that if he marked “Yes” but failed to do so, the “Board may summarily dismiss your appeal.” Flores-Evangelista indicated that he would file a brief but failed to do so within the set briefing schedule. Predictably, the Board summarily dismissed Flores- Evangelista’s appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A) and (E). The Board noted that the Notice of Appeal “does not contain statements that meaningfully apprise the Board of specific reasons underlying the challenge to the Immigration Judge’s decision” and that Flores-Evangelista did not file a brief or reasonably explain his failure to do so. Flores-Evangelista now petitions for review of the Board’s decision, arguing that the Board abused its discretion in summarily dismissing his appeal.1 This court has held that summary dismissal is appropriate “when a petitioner fails to apprise the Board of the specific grounds for his appeal, whether by specifying the reasons in the notice of appeal or by …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals