Maria Carmelina Perez Nolasco v. U.S. Attorney General

── Maria Carmelina Perez Nolasco v. U.S. Attorney General ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: June 03, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-12728 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 06/03/2026 Page: 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12728 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ MARIA CARMELINA PEREZ NOLASCO, YUSELA NEOMI PEREZ NOLASCO, Petitioners, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A209-011-320 ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and LUCK and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-12728 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 06/03/2026 Page: 2 of 4 2 Opinion of the Court 25-12728 Maria Carmelina Perez Nolasco, a native and citizen of Gua- temala, petitions, on behalf of herself and her daughter, for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing Perez Nolasco’s appeal after denying her motion to accept a late-filed brief. Perez Nolasco argues that the Board abused its discretion and violated her right to due process by denying her motion to accept a late-filed brief without reasoned consideration and then summar- ily dismissing her appeal for failure to file a timely brief. Perez No- lasco also argues that the immigration judge erred in denying her claims for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigra- tion and Nationality Act and for relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or De- grading Treatment or Punishment. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a), 1231(b)(3). We deny the petition. We review the Board’s summary dismissal of a petitioner’s case for abuse of discretion. Esponda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 453 F.3d 1319, 1321 (11th Cir. 2006). Because the regulation regarding late-filed briefs vests discretion in the Board, we also review the Board’s denial of a motion to accept a late-filed brief for abuse of discretion. Id.; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c)(1) (2024). The Board abuses its discretion by acting arbitrarily or capriciously. Ali v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 443 F.3d 804, 808 (11th Cir. 2006). Perez Nolasco’s challenges to the immigration judge’s con- clusions as to her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention are not properly before us because the Board summarily dismissed her appeal on the grounds that Perez USCA11 Case: 25-12728 Document: 25-1 Date Filed: 06/03/2026 Page: 3 of 4 25-12728 Opinion of the Court 3 Nolasco did not file a timely brief and her notice of appeal did not specify the reasons for the appeal. So, we will not consider those issues. See Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016), abrogated in part on other grounds by Loper Bright Enters. v. Rai- mondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). The Board did not abuse its discretion nor deprive Perez No- lasco of due process by declining to exercise its discretionary au- thority to accept her late-filed brief and summarily dismissing her appeal. The version of section 1003.3(c)(1) in effect at the time of Perez Nolasco’s appeal mad