Immigration – Untimely petition

Listen to this article

Where an untimely petition for review has been brought, the petition must be dismissed because a time extension is prohibited by Rule 26(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

“Igor Quinn-Goncalves, an undocumented native and citizen of Brazil, brings this petition for review of an April 17, 2024 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (‘BIA’) denying his appeal of an immigration judge’s order that he be removed from the United States. The petition was not timely filed in this Court and therefore is dismissed.

“Quinn-Goncalves, who has been detained at all relevant times, acknowledges that his petition was untimely because it arrived at the clerk’s office on May 20, 2024 — three days after the last day on which it could have been timely filed. … He also recognizes that this Court may not extend the time for filing a petition for review. … He nevertheless contends that we may address the merits of his petition through a post hoc extension of time for the clerk to receive the petition, and that good cause exists for us to do so. …

“… Even so, we conclude that a petition for review mailed but not timely received within the time fixed for filing falls within Rule 26(b)(2)’s prohibition on the Court granting time extensions. …

“Although Quinn-Goncalves mailed his petition before the expiration of the statutory deadline for filing his petition for review, he failed to ensure that the clerk received it by that deadline. Quinn-Goncalves therefore failed to timely file his petition, …; is barred by Rule 26(b) from obtaining a post hoc extension of time for filing; and has presented no other developed argument for avoiding the prohibition set forth in Rule 26(b). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition.”

Goncalves v. Bondi (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-094-25) (14 pages) (Aframe, J.) Sierra J. Perez-Sparks, with whom David Zimmer was on brief, for the petitioner; Christopher Ian Pryby, with whom Brian M. Boynton and Anthony C. Payne were on brief, for the respondent (Docket No. 24-1511) (May 20, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.