Reasoned Consideration Satisfied When the BIA Addresses the Core Equitable-Tolling Explanation for an Untimely Appeal—Even Without Discussing Each Diligence Exhibit

Case: Tania Suazo Cruz v. U.S. Attorney General

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Date: January 20, 2026

Disposition: Petition denied (summary denial; non-publication)

1. Introduction

This petition for review arose from removal proceedings involving Tania Cesibel Suazo Cruz (a citizen of Guatemala) and her husband, Jaime Enrique Loera Montanez (a citizen of Mexico). Both entered the United States without inspection, were placed in removal proceedings, and were represented by the same counsel. Suazo Cruz sought withholding of removal and CAT relief, with Loera Montanez listed as a rider. She also sought cancellation of removal and adjustment of status. An immigration judge denied relief and ordered both removed on May 22, 2024.

The central appellate issue was procedural: whether the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”) erred by summarily dismissing the appeal as untimely, allegedly failing to give reasoned consideration to the petitioners’ request for equitable tolling after an initial, timely notice of appeal was rejected for filing defects (failure to file a separate EOIR-27 appearance form for the husband).

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Eleventh Circuit granted the government’s motion for summary denial and denied the petition for review. The court held that the BIA did give reasoned consideration to the petitioners’ equitable-tolling request. The BIA addressed counsel’s explanation—namely, counsel’s mistaken belief that filing the missing EOIR-27 alone would cause the earlier appeal to be accepted—and reasonably concluded that the petitioners failed to establish diligence or an extraordinary circumstance, particularly given the six-month delay before refiling the notice of appeal.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The opinion’s reasoning is built from interlocking lines of authority: (i) the Eleventh Circuit’s summary-disposition standard; (ii) the “reasoned consideration” doctrine for reviewing BIA decisions; and (iii) equitable tolling standards applied to immigration appeal deadlines treated as claim-processing rules.

Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir. 1969).
The court invoked Groendyke’s standard for summary disposition: summary denial is appropriate when one party’s legal position is “clearly right” such that there is “no substantial question” as to the outcome. This frames the procedural posture—why the court could deny without full briefing.
Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2 d 12 06 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
Bonner is cited to explain why a former Fifth Circuit case (Groendyke) binds the Eleventh Circuit: all pre-October 1, 1981 Fifth Circuit decisions are adopted as binding precedent.
Ali v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 931 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2019).
Ali supplies two key review principles: (1) the standard of review is de novo when evaluating whether the BIA provided reasoned consideration, and (2) while the BIA must “consider all the evidence submitted,” it need not “address specifically each piece of evidence.” This case is central to rejecting the petitioners’ argument that the BIA was required to expressly discuss follow-up calls or every diligence-related exhibit.
Matter of Morales-Morales, 28 I. & N. Dec. 714 (BIA 2023).
The opinion relies on the Board’s own precedent that the 30-day appeal deadline is a claim-processing rule and can be equitably tolled. This matters because it confirms the BIA had authority to accept a late appeal if equitable tolling were established—so the dispute turned on whether tolling was warranted and adequately considered.
Ruiz-Turcios v. U.S. Att'y. Gen., 717 F.3d 847 (11th Cir. 2013).
Ruiz-Turcios provides the general equitable-tolling test: the litigant must show (i) diligent pursuit of rights and (ii) an extraordinary circumstance that stood in the way. The Eleventh Circuit measured the petitioners’ showing (and the BIA’s analysis) against this framework.
Hamilton v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 138 F.4th 1312 (11th Cir. 2025).
Hamilton is cited for the proposition that the BIA must give reasoned consideration to a motion seeking equitable tolling. This anchors the petitioners’ claim in a recognized legal duty; the question becomes whether the BIA met that duty here.
Jathursan v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 17 F.4th 1365 (11th Cir. 2021).
Jathursan supplies the operational definition of “reasoned consideration”: whether the BIA considered the issues raised and explained its decision in terms sufficient to show it “heard and thought” rather than “merely reacted.” It also lists typical failures (misstating the record, failing to explain rejection of logical conclusions, or offering unreasonable justifications unresponsive to arguments).

Notably, the panel also relied on the regulatory framework governing BIA appeals—particularly the requirement that, when represented, an appellant must file a notice of appeal along with required documents such as the EOIR-27 appearance form, and that the BIA may summarily dismiss untimely appeals.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

A. The filing-defect sequence shaped the equitable-tolling inquiry

The petitioners filed a notice of appeal on June 10, 2024—within the 30-day deadline (due June 24). The BIA rejected that filing because counsel filed an EOIR-27 for Suazo Cruz but not for Loera Montanez, despite both being parties. The rejection notice explicitly warned that rejection “does not extend” the original deadline and instructed that a corrected appeal filed after the deadline must be within 15 days of rejection and include the notice; beyond that, the party must request acceptance and “clearly establish” diligence and an extraordinary circumstance.

Counsel filed the missing EOIR-27 on June 19 but did not refile the notice of appeal. Months later, counsel sent another letter, and ultimately on December 19 filed a new notice of appeal with a motion asking the BIA to accept it, supported mainly by counsel’s declaration of mistaken belief.

B. The BIA’s focus on the unexplained six-month gap was dispositive

In denying equitable tolling, the BIA acknowledged counsel’s asserted mistake but emphasized the lack of a “further explanation” for why the notice of appeal was filed “six months beyond the appeal filing deadline.” The Eleventh Circuit treated that as a permissible, reasoned evaluation of both prongs of the tolling test:

Diligence: A diligent litigant (or counsel) would ordinarily respond to a rejection that expressly warns the deadline is not extended by promptly refiling the corrected notice of appeal (or promptly seeking acceptance with a developed tolling explanation). The BIA concluded the petitioners did not show that level of pursuit across the extended period.
Extraordinary circumstance: Counsel’s mistaken belief that the appeal would be “accepted” once the missing EOIR-27 was filed did not, on this record, explain why the notice of appeal was not refiled for months, especially given the rejection notice’s explicit instructions. The BIA thus concluded extraordinary circumstances were not established.

C. Why “reasoned consideration” was satisfied despite limited discussion of evidence

The petitioners’ principal complaint on judicial review was that the BIA did not adequately consider evidence of diligence, including counsel’s follow-up calls and attempts to communicate with the Board. The Eleventh Circuit rejected this as a reasoned-consideration challenge because:

Under Ali v. U.S. Att'y Gen., the BIA need not discuss each piece of evidence expressly.
The BIA did address the core narrative offered for tolling (counsel’s mistaken belief about the effect of refiling the EOIR-27), and explained why that narrative did not justify the ultimate lateness (the six-month delay).
The BIA’s explanation was sufficient for judicial review—meeting Jathursan v. U.S. Att'y Gen.’s standard that the decision show the agency “heard and thought.”

D. The summary-denial posture reinforced the court’s narrow focus

Applying Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, the court concluded the government’s position was “clearly correct” as a matter of law: the BIA’s stated reasoning met the Eleventh Circuit’s threshold for reasoned consideration, leaving “no substantial question” warranting full merits processing.

3.3 Impact

A. Practical impact on immigration appellate practice (EOIR-27 compliance)

Although unpublished, the decision underscores a recurring procedural trap: in multi-party appeals, counsel must file separate EOIR-27 forms for each represented party. A defect can cause the BIA to reject the filing, and—critically—the rejection does not extend the original deadline. Practitioners are on notice that simply curing the missing appearance form may not resurrect the appeal unless the notice of appeal is properly refiled as directed.

B. Narrowed runway for equitable tolling where delay is extensive and explanation is thin

The opinion indicates that the Eleventh Circuit is unlikely to find a reasoned-consideration violation where the BIA (1) identifies the core explanation offered for late filing, and (2) pinpoints an obvious deficiency—here, an unexplained multi-month delay. Even if diligence evidence exists (calls, letters), a failure to account for the overall timing gap may be fatal to both tolling and to a reasoned-consideration challenge.

C. Doctrinal impact: reinforcing the “not each exhibit” rule in reasoned-consideration review

The opinion reinforces an important administrative-law principle in the immigration context: the BIA must consider the record and issues raised, but it is not required to write an opinion that itemizes and resolves each evidentiary detail. Future petitioners challenging BIA denials of equitable tolling on reasoned-consideration grounds will need to show more than omission of specific evidence; they will need to show misstatement, non-responsiveness, or irrational reasoning of the kind described in Jathursan v. U.S. Att'y Gen..

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Equitable tolling: A doctrine that can excuse a missed deadline when the litigant (1) acted diligently and (2) was prevented from timely filing by an extraordinary obstacle. It is not automatic; it requires a developed, fact-specific showing.
Claim-processing rule: A procedural deadline that directs how claims must be processed. Unlike jurisdictional limits, it can sometimes be relaxed (e.g., via equitable tolling), depending on governing law and doctrine.
Reasoned consideration: A standard requiring the BIA to show, through its explanation, that it genuinely considered the arguments and evidence and provided enough reasoning to permit appellate review. It does not require discussion of every document or factual point.
Summary dismissal (BIA): The BIA’s authority under regulation to dismiss certain appeals without full merits review, including for untimeliness.
Summary disposition (court of appeals): An appellate tool allowing quick resolution when the outcome is legally clear (here, under Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis).
EOIR-27: The notice of appearance form for representation before the BIA; separate forms are required for each party represented.

5. Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision affirms that the BIA satisfies its obligation of reasoned consideration in the equitable-tolling context when it addresses the core explanation for lateness and identifies why that explanation fails—particularly where there is an extended, largely unexplained delay in refiling. The opinion highlights the high practical stakes of strict compliance with BIA filing requirements (including separate EOIR-27 forms) and signals that reasoned-consideration challenges will not succeed merely because the BIA did not expressly discuss every diligence-related exhibit.