Santos Elias Aguilar v. Attorney General United States, 20-2866

Santos Elias Aguilar, a Guatemalan national who entered the U.S. in 2007 at age 13, was charged in 2019 with removability for overstaying and conceded removability; the IJ noted a contempt conviction and pending criminal charges.
Aguilar applied for asylum, withholding, CAT protection, and cancellation of removal; the Immigration Judge denied all relief after a hearing.
Aguilar filed a Notice of Appeal (NOA) to the BIA on March 2, 2020 but did not specify any grounds, stating he would file a brief later because he lacked a written copy of the IJ’s oral decision.
The BIA set a briefing schedule; Aguilar (while detained at Essex County Correctional Facility) sought an extension on June 9, 2020 asserting COVID-19 law library closures prevented use of a typewriter; his initial filing was returned for lack of certificate of service but was later resubmitted.
The BIA denied the extension as untimely and summarily dismissed the appeal for (1) failure to specify reasons on Form EOIR–26 and (2) failure to file a brief; the Third Circuit denied Aguilar’s petition for review, holding the BIA did not abuse its discretion.

Issue	Aguilar's Argument	BIA's Argument	Held
Whether BIA abused discretion by summarily dismissing for failure to specify reasons on NOA	Aguilar said he could not state grounds because he lacked a written IJ decision and intended to file a brief later	NOA failed to identify errors despite warnings and service of a Summary Order; BIA may dismiss under the regulation	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; Aguilar failed to allege errors on NOA or afterward
Whether BIA abused discretion by dismissing for failure to file a brief after promising one	Aguilar said COVID-19 law library closure and lack of typewriter prevented timely, acceptable brief	Request for extension was untimely; Aguilar did not explain why library closure prevented filing at all	Affirmed — dismissal under the brief-filing rule was justified; alternative ground alone sufficed
Whether prison mailing timing excused untimeliness (mailbox rule)	Aguilar contended his extension request was delivered to prison officials before the deadline	BIA does not accept a mailbox rule for filings	Implicitly against Aguilar — extension denial stands as untimely

Uddin v. Att’y Gen., 870 F.3d 282 (3d Cir. 2017) (standard of review for BIA summary dismissal)
Tipu v. INS, 20 F.3d 580 (3d Cir. 1994) (BIA discretionary decisions reviewed for arbitrary or irrational exercise)
Esponda v. Att’y Gen., 453 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2006) (BIA may not summarily dismiss where NOA identifies reasons for appeal)