The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a per curiam decision Jan. 20 dismissing an immigration petition filed by Tania Cesibel Suazo Cruz and her husband Jaime Enrique Loera Montanez, who sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ruling that denied their asylum claims.
The case, *Tania Cesibel Suazo Cruz v. U.S. Attorney General* (11th Cir. 2026), involved the couple's challenge to the BIA's dismissal of their appeal as untimely. The petitioners argued that the board failed to provide reasoned consideration to their request for equitable tolling, which would have allowed their late-filed appeal to proceed despite missing statutory deadlines.
According to court documents, Suazo Cruz, a citizen of Guatemala, and Loera Montanez, a citizen of Mexico, each entered the United States without inspection and later married while living in the country. In 2020, the Department of Homeland Security issued notices to appear, charging that each was removable from the United States.
Suazo Cruz filed applications seeking multiple forms of relief from removal, including withholding of removal, protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and adjustment of status. An immigration judge denied these applications, prompting the couple to appeal to the BIA.
The BIA dismissed their appeal, finding it was filed after the statutory deadline. Immigration law requires appeals to be filed within 30 days of an immigration judge's decision, with limited exceptions for equitable tolling in extraordinary circumstances. The petitioners sought equitable tolling, arguing that circumstances beyond their control prevented them from filing a timely appeal.
Equitable tolling is a legal doctrine that allows courts to extend filing deadlines when a petitioner has been prevented from filing on time due to extraordinary circumstances beyond their control, despite exercising reasonable diligence. Courts typically require petitioners to demonstrate both that extraordinary circumstances prevented timely filing and that they acted with reasonable diligence throughout the period they seek to toll.
The Eleventh Circuit's three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Jill Pryor, Anderson, and Wilson, reviewed the BIA's decision and found no error warranting reversal. The court granted the government's motion for summary denial, effectively upholding the BIA's dismissal of the untimely appeal.
The government had argued that the petition should be summarily denied, contending that the BIA properly dismissed the appeal as untimely and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate grounds for equitable tolling. Summary denial motions are common in immigration appeals where the government believes the petition lacks merit or presents no substantial legal questions.
The decision was issued as an unpublished opinion marked "NOT FOR PUBLICATION," indicating it will not serve as binding precedent for future cases. Such opinions are typically reserved for cases that apply established law to particular facts without breaking new legal ground.
The case highlights ongoing challenges in immigration law, where strict filing deadlines often create barriers for individuals seeking relief from removal. The 30-day appeal deadline is designed to promote finality in immigration proceedings, but critics argue it can prevent meritorious claims from receiving full consideration when petitioners face obstacles in navigating the complex immigration system.
Immigration attorneys often emphasize the importance of strict deadline compliance in removal proceedings, as courts have limited discretion to excuse late filings. The equitable tolling doctrine provides some flexibility, but courts apply it sparingly and only in truly extraordinary circumstances.
The Eleventh Circuit, which covers Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, handles a significant volume of immigration appeals due to the region's large immigrant population and active enforcement efforts. The circuit's immigration decisions often involve questions of asylum eligibility, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection for individuals from Latin America.
Withholding of removal provides protection for individuals who can demonstrate they would more likely than not face persecution in their home countries based on protected characteristics such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. The standard for withholding is higher than for asylum, requiring a greater showing of likelihood of persecution.
Convention Against Torture protection, meanwhile, prohibits removal to countries where individuals would more likely than not face torture. This form of relief has a lower burden than asylum regarding past persecution but requires a specific showing that torture is likely.
The couple's case also involved an application for adjustment of status, which would have allowed Suazo Cruz to obtain lawful permanent residence based on her marriage to Loera Montanez, assuming he had legal status in the United States.
The dismissal of the petition means the immigration judge's original denial of relief remains in effect, leaving the couple without protection from removal. They may still have options for relief, including potentially filing new applications if circumstances have changed or pursuing other forms of immigration benefits.
The case underscores the complexity of immigration law and the critical importance of timely filing in removal proceedings, where missing deadlines can foreclose otherwise meritorious claims for protection.