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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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.
