Court Opinion

ID: 9405465
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 17:01:08.311246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:22.342146
License: Public Domain

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                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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 submitting an additional statement or
       brief.” Bayro v. Reno, 142 F.3d 1377, 1379 (11th Cir. 1998)

       1We review the Board’s summary disposition of a petitioner’s case for an
       abuse of discretion. Esponda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 453 F.3d 1319, 1321 (11th Cir.
       2006).
USCA11 Case: 22-11691     Document: 24-1      Date Filed: 06/28/2023    Page: 4 of 5

       4                      Opinion of the Court                22-11691

       (quotation omitted). Flores-Evangelista has done neither here, so
       we deny the petition.
               Flores-Evangelista does not contest that he failed to submit
       an additional statement or brief. Instead, he argues that the Board
       failed to give adequate consideration to his claim that his former
       counsel was deficient. As he sees it, had he enjoyed the benefit of
       adequate counsel, he would have submitted additional evidence
       that would have shown him to be eligible for withholding of
       removal.
               Flores-Evangelista’s cursory statements in his Notice of
       Appeal were inadequate to apprise the Board of his challenge to the
       Immigration Judge’s decision. His statements that his “[a]ttorney
       did not present withholding matter” and “did not present police
       report given to her to the Court” are sufficient to apprise the Board
       that he was challenging the actions of his attorney, but they are too
       vague to indicate which actions of his attorney that he was
       challenging or how they relate to the Immigration Judge’s decision.
       It is entirely speculative what “withholding matter” is or how it
       would demonstrate his entitlement to relief. The same is true of
       the police report; the notice does not apprise the Board of what the
       police report shows or how it supports his claims. Moreover, the
       notice lacks citations to supporting legal authority that would be
       necessary to apprise the Board of the nature of his claims. Without
       a separate brief explaining the grounds for his appeal, it would be
       impossible for the Board to identify, review, and (if necessary)
       correct the errors of the Immigration Judge. Accordingly, the
USCA11 Case: 22-11691   Document: 24-1    Date Filed: 06/28/2023   Page: 5 of 5

       22-11691            Opinion of the Court                     5

       Board did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing the
       appeal.
             PETITION DENIED.