Tania Suazo Cruz v. U.S. Attorney General

USCA11 Case: 25-11701 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 01/20/2026 Page: 1 of 7

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11701 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ TANIA CESIBEL SUAZO CRUZ, JAIME ENRIQUE LOERA MONTANEZ, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A207-018-032 ____________________ Before JILL PRYOR, ANDERSON, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Tania Cesibel Suazo Cruz and her husband, Jaime Enrique Loera Montanez, petition for review of the order from the Board USCA11 Case: 25-11701 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 01/20/2026 Page: 2 of 7

I.

Suazo Cruz, a citizen of Guatemala, and Loera Montanez, a citizen of Mexico, each entered the United States without inspec- tion. While living in the United States, they married. In 2020, the Department of Homeland Security issued notices to appear, charg- ing that each was removable. They were represented by the same counsel in their removal proceedings, which proceeded together.

Suazo Cruz applied for withholding of removal and CAT re- lief with Loera Montanez as a rider on her application. She also ap- plied for cancellation of removal and adjustment of status. On May 22, 2024, an immigration judge denied the applications and ordered Suazo Cruz and Loera Montanez removed.

On June 10, Suazo Cruz and Loera Montanez filed a notice of appeal with the Board. Three days later the Board notified them that it had rejected their filing. It rejected the filing because the at- torney who represented them had filed a form EOIR-27 to enter an USCA11 Case: 25-11701 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 01/20/2026 Page: 3 of 7

25-11701 Opinion of the Court 3 appearance for Suazo Cruz but not for Loera Montanez. The Board directed them to file a form EOIR-27 for Loera Montanez. It warned that the rejection of their appeal did “not extend the origi- nal deadline for” filing the notice of appeal and directed that “[a]ny corrected appeal . . . refiled after the original time limit must be filed within 15 days from the date of this rejection and include this notice.” AR at 38. 1 It stated that if they refiled their corrected appeal after the original deadline or after the 15-day period, they had to “make a request to the [Board] to accept [their] appeal” and had to “clearly establish both diligence in the filing of the notice of ap- peal . . . and that an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing.” Id. Shortly after receiving this notice, on June 19, the petition- ers’ attorney submitted to the Board a form EOIR-27 for Loera Montanez but did not refile the notice of appeal. The Board did not docket the appeal. On September 5, the attorney sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security again submitting the form EOIR-27 for Loera Montanez. The Board still did not docket the appeal.

On December 19, the petitioners filed a new notice of appeal with the Board along with a motion asking it to accept their notice of appeal. Their attorney submitted a declaration explaining that she had “believed that the appeal would be accepted once the no- tice of entry of appearance” for Loera Montanez was submitted. Id.

USCA11 Case: 25-11701 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 01/20/2026 Page: 4 of 7

The Board summarily dismissed the appeal as untimely. It explained that the notice of appeal was due on or before June 24, 2024. Although the petitioners’ first notice of appeal was filed be- fore this deadline, the Board explained that it was rejected for filing defects. And it determined that the petitioners’ second notice of ap- peal was untimely because it was not filed until December.

The Board then considered the petitioners’ motion in which they sought equitable tolling. It stated that their attorney had erro- neously “believed the appeal would be accepted upon the refiling of the form EOIR-27 alone.” Id. at 3. Although the attorney detailed this mistake, the Board noted that she had failed to provide any “further explanation as to why the notice of appeal was filed six months beyond the appeal filing deadline.” Id. It then concluded that the petitioners were not entitled to equitable tolling because they failed to exercise due diligence or establish extraordinary cir- cumstances.

The petitioners now seek review in this Court.

II.

Summary disposition is appropriate when “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can USCA11 Case: 25-11701 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 01/20/2026 Page: 5 of 7

25-11701 Opinion of the Court 5 be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” Groen- dyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 2 We review de novo whether the Board failed to give reasoned consideration to an issue. Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 931 F.3d 1327, 1333 (11th Cir. 2019).

III.

In general, a noncitizen seeking review of an immigration judge’s decision must file a notice of appeal with the Board within days of the decision. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.3(a)(1); 1003.38(b). By the deadline, the noncitizen must file with the Board a notice of appeal as well as all other required documents. Id. § 1003.3(a)(1). When a noncitizen is represented by an attorney, these required documents include the EOIR-27 form, which is the attorney’s notice of appear- ance before the Board. Id. § 1003.3(a)(3). The EOIR-27 form directs that an attorney must file a separate form for each party she repre- sents and warns that failure to properly complete the form may result in the Board rejecting the appeal. The Board has the author- ity to summarily dismiss an untimely appeal. Id. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(G).

The Board treats the deadline for filing a notice of appeal of an immigration judge’s decision as a claim-processing rule that is subject to equitable tolling. Matter of Morales-Morales, 28 I. & N.

2 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit issued before October 1, 1981.

USCA11 Case: 25-11701 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 01/20/2026 Page: 6 of 7

The petitioners seek review of the Board’s decision dismiss- ing their appeal. They argue that the Board failed to give reasoned consideration to their request for equitable tolling. They say that the Board failed to consider their evidence of due diligence, which included their attorney’s attempts to contact the Board after the initial notice of appeal was rejected.

The Board was required to give reasoned consideration to the petitioners’ motion seeking equitable tolling. See Hamilton v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 138 F.4th 1312, 1323 (11th Cir. 2025). To determine whether the Board gave the motion reasoned consideration, we ask “whether the Board considered the issues raised” in the motion and “announced its decision in terms sufficient to enable a review- ing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” Jathursan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 17 F.4th 1365, 1372 (11th Cir. 2021) (citation modified). In reviewing the petitioners’ motion, the Board was required to “consider all the evidence submitted,” but it did not need to “address specifically each piece of evidence.” Ali, 931 F.3d at 1333 (citation modified). We have recognized that the Board fails to give reasoned consideration to an issue when it “mis- states the contents of the record, fails to adequately explain its re- jection of logical conclusions, or provides justifications for its USCA11 Case: 25-11701 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 01/20/2026 Page: 7 of 7

25-11701 Opinion of the Court 7 decision which are unreasonable and which do not respond to any arguments in the record.” Jathursan, 17 F.4th at 1372 (citation mod- ified).

Here, the government is clearly correct, as a matter of law, that the Board gave reasoned consideration to the petitioners’ re- quest for equitable tolling. The substance of the Board’s decision shows that it heard and thought about the request for equitable tolling and then rejected it. In its decision, the Board discussed the attorney’s declaration and explained why her explanation failed to establish that equitable tolling was warranted. Even if the Board did not separately discuss the other evidence that the petitioners submitted, we can tell from its decision that it considered all the evidence submitted. Because the government’s position is clearly correct as a matter of law, we GRANT the government’s motion for summary denial of the petition for review. 3 PETITION DENIED.