Introduction

In Lopez-Gomez v. Bondi, the First Circuit granted a petition for review and remanded to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) after concluding that the BIA abused its discretion by refusing to consider a late-filed appellate brief without providing a meaningful explanation. The case centers on a common but consequential scenario in immigration appeals: a brief is timely prepared and filed electronically but is mistakenly submitted to the immigration court rather than the BIA. When counsel corrected the filing promptly and moved the BIA to accept the late brief, the BIA—via an unsigned, clerk-issued notice—summarily denied the request and later dismissed the appeal for failure to brief, deeming issues waived.

The First Circuit held that where a petitioner provides a colorable, record-based justification for a late filing and acts diligently to correct the error, the BIA must offer a reasoned explanation for declining to exercise its discretion under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c)(1) to accept the brief. Absent such explanation, appellate courts cannot conduct “intelligent review,” and the denial constitutes an abuse of discretion.

Parties:

• Petitioners: Eldi López-Gómez, a citizen of Guatemala, and her minor daughter, M.S.L. (derivative on asylum claim).
• Respondent: Pamela J. Bondi, Attorney General.

The core issue before the First Circuit was procedural: Did the BIA abuse its discretion by rejecting a late-filed brief without articulating reasons, particularly when the record showed timely preparation, an understandable filing misstep, prompt correction, and no government opposition?

Summary of the Opinion

The First Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded. It held that:

• The BIA possesses discretion under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c)(1) to accept late-filed briefs.
• Appellate review of such discretionary decisions is for abuse of discretion.
• Meaningful judicial review requires that the BIA provide enough reasoning to reveal the basis for its decision, especially when the record presents strong arguments in favor of relief.
• Here, the BIA’s clerk-issued “Notice of Action” and the subsequent single-member decision offered only conclusory statements and failed to engage the petitioner’s showing of diligence, minimal delay, clerical/technical error, prompt correction, and the absence of government objection.
• This lack of explanation is an abuse of discretion because it prevents “intelligent review” and suggests a failure to consider relevant factors.

The court did not reach the merits of López-Gómez’s underlying asylum, withholding, and CAT claims because the BIA’s dismissal rested primarily on the supposed failure to brief. Having remanded for the BIA to consider the late brief (or to provide a reasoned explanation for declining to do so), the First Circuit left those merits questions for the agency to address in the first instance.

Analysis

A. Precedents and Authorities Cited

The First Circuit’s analysis draws on a line of decisions emphasizing reasoned agency decision-making and the need for explanations sufficient to permit judicial review:

• Statutory and Regulatory Framework
  • 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (a)(2)(D): The court has jurisdiction over questions of law, including whether the agency complied with its own regulations.
  • 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c)(1): The BIA “in its discretion may consider a brief that has been filed out of time.” The regulation also contemplates briefing schedules and extensions in ordinary course.
• First Circuit Precedent on Reasoned Explanations
  • Lumataw v. Holder, 582 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2009): Courts review whether the agency followed its own regulations as a question of law.
  • Mazariegos v. Lynch, 790 F.3d 280 (1st Cir. 2015): Abuse-of-discretion review applies to certain immigration case-management decisions; the agency must exercise discretion rationally.
  • Tillery v. Lynch, 821 F.3d 182 (1st Cir. 2016): Courts need enough explanation to “provide intelligent review.”
  • Rivera-Medrano v. Garland, 47 F.4th 29 (1st Cir. 2022): The BIA need not write extensively when the logic is obvious, but it must engage with “strong arguments” suggested by the record.
  • Sihotang v. Sessions, 900 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 2018): A “stark failure to consider significant facts” bearing on a discretionary decision constitutes an abuse of discretion.
  • Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25 (1st Cir. 2022): If the BIA’s explanation is too thin to evaluate alleged error, remand is appropriate.
• Parallel Reasoning from Other Circuits
  • Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010): Abuse-of-discretion review in discretionary immigration decisions.
  • Oluwajana v. Garland, 33 F.4th 411 (7th Cir. 2022): Similar discretion principles.
  • Camacho v. Whitaker, 910 F.3d 378 (8th Cir. 2018): The BIA must “consider the issues raised and announce its decision” in terms showing it “has heard and thought and not merely reacted.”
  • Garcia Gomez v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam): Remand where the BIA failed to articulate reasons for rejecting a late brief.
  • Gutierrez-Almazan v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 341 (7th Cir. 2007): Similar remand for lack of explanation on late-brief denial.
  • Bartu v. Bondi, No. 25-2048, 2025 WL 2364589 (8th Cir. Aug. 14, 2025) (per curiam): Recent, closely aligned decision remanding because the BIA “failed to offer a rational explanation” for refusing to accept a late brief; cited by the First Circuit.

B. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The First Circuit applied a straightforward administrative law principle to the BIA’s discretionary authority: discretion must be exercised, not abdicated, and its exercise must be explained enough to permit appellate review.

1. Standard of Review and Jurisdiction

   Whether the BIA complied with 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c)(1) is a question of law within the court’s jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), (a)(2)(D). Because the regulation confers discretion, the court reviews for abuse of discretion, asking whether the BIA offered a reasoned explanation that considered relevant facts and articulated a rational basis.

2. Need for a Reasoned Explanation

   The court emphasized that it cannot “provide intelligent review” unless it can discern why the agency decided as it did. Minimal or conclusory statements may suffice where the basis is obvious, but not when the record presents “strong arguments” that were apparently overlooked. Here, López’s motion provided a plausible, record-backed explanation:

   • The brief was electronically filed on the due date.
   • The error was a forum-selection misstep in the electronic system (filed with the immigration court rather than the BIA).
   • Counsel corrected the error the day it was identified and promptly moved the BIA to accept the brief.
   • The government did not oppose before the clerk’s denial issued.
   • The delay was short and fell comfortably within the kinds of extensions the BIA can grant “in the ordinary course” under § 1003.3(c)(1).
   Despite these facts, the BIA’s clerk-issued notice stated only that the rationale was “insufficient” and that the request did not warrant an exercise of discretion. The later merits dismissal then declared, without analysis, that López had neither filed a brief nor “reasonably explained” the failure to do so within the allotted time. The First Circuit found both explanations “too thin” to enable meaningful review and suggestive of a failure to consider salient facts.

3. Abuse of Discretion Finding

   The court did not hold that the BIA must always accept late briefs; rather, it held that, on this record, the BIA’s failure to acknowledge and weigh key facts (timely preparation, prompt correction, minimal delay, lack of opposition) and to articulate a reasoned basis for denial constituted an abuse of discretion. The court underscored that there may be valid reasons to deny acceptance of late briefs—but those reasons must be stated.

4. Remedy and Scope of Review

   Because the BIA dismissed the appeal largely on the ground that there was no brief—and the court could not predict what the BIA would have done had it considered the brief—the First Circuit did not reach López’s substantive challenges to the immigration judge’s decision. It remanded for the BIA to either accept the brief or provide a reasoned explanation for declining to do so, and then to adjudicate the appeal accordingly.

C. Anticipated Impact

This decision clarifies and reinforces that:

• Reasoned decision-making is required in discretionary denials under § 1003.3(c)(1): The BIA cannot rely on conclusory boilerplate or clerk notices when denying motions to accept late briefs, especially where the record indicates diligence, a minor technical error, and no prejudice.
• Practitioner diligence matters: The court took note of prompt corrective action and short delay. Future motions should document timelines, system confirmations, immediate refiling, and lack of prejudice.
• Administrative practice at the BIA may change: The use of unsigned “Notice of Action” forms with blanket statements (e.g., “No motion to reconsider will be considered”) may invite remands if they fail to demonstrate reasoned analysis. Single-member dismissals predicated on “no brief” risks reversal where a plausible late-brief motion was summarily denied.
• Alignment with other circuits: The First Circuit’s approach mirrors the Ninth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits’ insistence on rational explanations for late-brief denials. This cross-circuit consensus may encourage more transparent BIA practices nationwide.
• Downstream effects on merits adjudication: Where an appeal is dismissed for lack of a brief, courts may be increasingly reluctant to deem that harmless if the agency did not reasonably consider a motion to accept a late brief. Merits arguments are more likely to be reached at the agency level after such remands.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• BIA (Board of Immigration Appeals): The highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws. It reviews decisions by immigration judges (IJs). Appeals to the BIA often include briefs setting out legal arguments.
• 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c)(1) (Late-filed briefs): The regulation authorizes the BIA to set briefing schedules, grant extensions in appropriate circumstances, and—critically here—exercise discretion to consider briefs that are filed after the deadline. This is not an entitlement; it’s a case-by-case judgment.
• Abuse of discretion: A standard of review under which a decision may be overturned if it lacks a rational explanation, ignores important facts, relies on inappropriate factors, or is otherwise arbitrary. It doesn’t mean the court substitutes its judgment for the agency’s; it requires that the agency show its work.
• “Intelligent review” and reasoned explanation: Appellate courts need to understand the logic behind an agency’s decision. Brief, conclusory statements can be adequate in simple cases, but where the record raises strong arguments, the agency must explain why those arguments don’t carry the day.
• Waiver for failure to brief: The BIA commonly treats issues as waived if they are not argued in a brief, even if mentioned on the notice of appeal. However, if the BIA wrongly refuses to consider a late brief, a dismissal for “no brief” cannot be insulated from review; courts may remand to ensure fair consideration.
• Clerk-issued notices vs. panel decisions: The BIA sometimes issues procedural rulings via unsigned clerk “Notices of Action.” While such notices can be part of the process, they must still reflect reasoned decision-making when they dispose of motions implicating substantive rights to appellate review.
• Derivative asylum claims: Certain family members (e.g., minor children) can receive asylum status derivatively. Here, the child’s claim rises or falls with the principal’s, so the remand likewise covers the derivative claim.

Practice Pointers and Practical Takeaways

• When filing appellate briefs, double-check that the correct forum (BIA vs. immigration court) is selected in the electronic system; retain confirmation screens and receipts.
• If an error occurs, correct it immediately and file a detailed motion to accept the late brief under § 1003.3(c)(1), attaching:
  • Evidence of the original filing date and the nature of the technical error.
  • Proof of prompt corrective action and the resulting short delay.
  • Any lack of prejudice to the government (e.g., no opposition, minimal delay).
• Address diligence expressly. Courts, including the First Circuit here, are receptive when the record shows a timely effort to comply and swift remediation.
• If the BIA issues a conclusory denial, preserve the issue for judicial review by identifying the omission (failure to consider key facts) and requesting reasoned adjudication.
• On remand, be prepared to brief both the procedural issue and the merits; do not assume acceptance of the late brief is automatic.

Conclusion

Lopez-Gomez v. Bondi establishes an important, clarifying principle in the First Circuit: when a noncitizen presents a plausible, evidence-backed reason for a late-filed BIA brief—particularly a minor, technical misfiling promptly corrected with minimal delay and no apparent prejudice—the BIA must provide a reasoned explanation if it chooses to deny acceptance under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c)(1). Conclusory, boilerplate denials and later dismissals for “no brief” that fail to grapple with the record’s salient facts constitute an abuse of discretion because they frustrate meaningful judicial review.

The ruling aligns the First Circuit with decisions from the Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits, reinforcing a broader administrative law norm: discretion must be exercised transparently and rationally. For practitioners, the case underscores the value of documenting diligence and minimizing delay; for the BIA, it signals that clerk-issued, unexplained denials of late-brief motions will not suffice where the record suggests a strong case for acceptance. The upshot is a fairer path to merits review in immigration appeals and a more robust record for appellate oversight.