Alba Leticia Castillo-De Molina, Oscar Armando Molina-Castillo v. PAMELA J. BONDI, Attorney General of the United States

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Argued May 13, 2025
Decided December 19, 2025
Before
MICHAEL B. BRENNAN, Chief Judge
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 24-1333
ALBA LETICIA CASTILLO-DE
MOLINA, OSCAR ARMANDO
MOLINA-CASTILLO, and JONATHAN
ODIR MOLINA-CASTILLO,
Petitioners,
v.
PAMELA J. BONDI,
Attorney General of the United States,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals.
No. A201-458-120
No. A201-458-121
No. A201-458-122
O R D E R
Petitioner Alba Castillo-De Molina has filed a petition seeking review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) decision to summarily dismiss her appeal and
subsequent ruling denying her motion to remand. For the following reasons, we deny
the petition for review.
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 7 --

No. 24-1333 Page 2
I. BACKGROUND
Castillo-De Molina entered the United States near Roma, Texas, from El Salvador
with her two children1 on November 2, 2018. The next day, the Department of
Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Castillo-De Molina by filing a
Notice to Appear. In that notice, DHS charged Castillo-De Molina with removability
pursuant to § 212(a)(6)(A)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Castillo-De Molina
retained Carlos Quichiz as counsel.
At her master calendar hearing on May 13, 2019, Castillo-De Molina conceded
her removability and sought relief by applying for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. Counsel represented to the
immigration judge that he would also file a brief in support of Castillo-De Molina’s
application within 30 days. Next, the IJ ensured that Quichiz had been served with
DHS’s instructions for complying with its biometrics requirements. The instruction
sheet included the following warning:
Important: Failure to complete these actions and to follow any additional
instructions that the Immigration Judge has given you could result in delay
in deciding your application or in your application being deemed
abandoned and dismissed by the court.
Concluding the hearing, the IJ requested that Quichiz file the supporting brief and that
he ensure that Castillo-De Molina complied with the biometrics instructions. The
individual merits hearing was set for December 19, 2019.
On November 22, 2019, Quichiz filed a motion to continue the merits hearing
noting that he had trouble securing documentation from the government clinic where
Castillo-De Molina had worked in El Salvador. Finding a lack of good cause for the
requested continuance, the request was denied on December 13, 2019. Quichiz then
mailed Castillo-De Molina’s biometric information to a United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services service center. The following day, Quichiz filed a brief to support
Castillo-De Molina’s application for relief on December 18, 2019.
1 Alba Castillo-De Molina (referred to herein as “petitioner”) is the lead applicant
for relief and her children are derivative applicants who rely on her application. See 8
U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.3(a).

-- 2 of 7 --

No. 24-1333 Page 3
The immigration judge held the hearing on Castillo-De Molina’s application the
next day—December 19, 2019. At the beginning of the hearing, the IJ noted that it had
received and reviewed the recently filed supporting documentation for Castillo-De
Molina’s application and that the court was ready to proceed. In response, the
government, relying on 8 C.F.R. § 1208.10, requested that the IJ consider Castillo-De
Molina’s application abandoned because she had failed to meet the biometric
requirements, and this had to be completed before the IJ could consider her asylum
application.
The IJ then questioned Castillo-De Molina’s counsel for the date the biometrics
were sent. Quichiz represented that he had submitted Castillo-De Molina’s biometric
information about four weeks earlier. Though the court lacked the necessary biometrics,
the IJ decided to proceed with the merits and hear testimony from the petitioner
concerning her asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection claims. Castillo-
De Molina testified that she had worked as a nurse in government clinics in El Salvador.
While working there, Castillo-De Molina had been pursued by gang members to
provide medical care and prescription medications on separate occasions. Out of fear of
harm from the gang members, Castillo-De Molina provided the services when
demanded but reported these incidents to her employer. Fearing retaliation, Castillo-De
Molina’s clinic supervisor indicated that there was nothing that could be done about the
gangs. When questioned about whether she had also reported these incidents to the
police, Castillo-De Molina testified that she had not because there was nothing the
police would do. At the conclusion of the hearing, the IJ indicated that it would issue a
written decision and directed Quichiz to file Castillo-De Molina’s biometrics
information with the court when it came in.
On November 11, 2020, the IJ issued its decision denying Castillo-De Molina’s
request for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection from removal under the
Convention Against Torture. Finding Castillo-De Molina had failed to demonstrate
good cause for not timely complying with the biometrics requirement as outlined in 8
C.F.R. § 1003.47(c); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.10, the IJ dismissed Castillo-De Molina’s application.
Alternatively, the IJ also ruled that her application for relief would have failed on the
merits because (1) Castillo-De Molina failed to show past persecution or a well-founded
fear of future persecution, (2) she had not shown a substantial risk of torture if she
returned to El Salvador, and (3) she had failed to demonstrate that a pattern or practice

-- 3 of 7 --

No. 24-1333 Page 4
of persecution against her proposed particular social group (nurses who refused to
cooperate with gangs). The IJ ordered Castillo-De Molina removed to El Salvador.2
Castillo-De Molina filed a notice of appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals
through her new counsel on December 16, 2020.3 Within the notice, Castillo-De Molina
also indicated that she would be filing a separate written brief or statement after
receiving the Board’s briefing schedule from the IJ. In a supplement attached to the
notice, she argued that the IJ erred in (1) denying her motion to continue; (2) dismissing
her application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the CAT for
failure to comply with the biometrics requirement; and (3) for denying her request for
relief on the merits. Castillo-De Molina also reserved the right to argue ineffective
assistance of counsel.
Next, the Board issued a briefing schedule and further warned Castillo-De
Molina that failing to file a brief within the time specified could result in a summary
dismissal.4 Castillo-De Molina requested an extension of time to file her brief, and the
Board granted it with Castillo-De Molina’s brief being due on June 8, 2022. The Board
again in the notice granting the extension warned Castillo-De Molina that failing to file
a brief could result in summary dismissal.
2 The IJ explained its reasoning for denying Castillo-De Molina’s earlier motion to
continue. Castillo-De Molina had requested a continuance to gather additional
documentation to support her testimony that she served as a nurse in El Salvador. The IJ
explained that because Castillo-De Molina had not demonstrated that she had been
making “diligent efforts” to collect these documents over the last seven months, her
request was denied. The IJ also noted that the documents would have been cumulative
of Castillo-De Molina’s testimony because she had been permitted to testify about her
role as a nurse.
3 Castillo-De Molina retained new counsel on October 28, 2020, before the IJ issued
its decision.
4 Specifically, “WARNING: If you indicate on the Notice of Appeal (Form EOIR-
26) that you will file a brief or statement, you are expected to file a brief or statement in
support of your appeal. If you fail to file a brief or statement within the time set for filing
in this briefing schedule, the Board may summarily dismiss your appeal. See 8 CFR
§ 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E).”

-- 4 of 7 --

No. 24-1333 Page 5
Despite these warnings, Castillo-De Molina never filed a brief. Instead, the day
after her brief was due, Castillo-De Molina moved to remand arguing that Quichiz, her
prior counsel, had been ineffective before the immigration judge. She attached to her
motion: (1) a complaint she filed with the Illinois Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) against Quichiz; (2) the receipt she received from the
ARDC; (3) a declaration in support of her complaint; and (4) Quichiz’s response to the
complaint, with exhibits. The Board acknowledged receipt of the motion on June 13,
2022, but noted that the briefing schedule remained as set.
The Board—with a single judge presiding, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E)—
summarily dismissed the appeal and denied Castillo-De Molina’s motion to remand.
The Board reasoned Castillo-De Molina’s notice of appeal did not sufficiently or
specifically identify the grounds for her appeal and that she did not file an additional
brief when she said she would. The Board also denied the motion to reopen because, in
its view, Castillo-De Molina did not provide any detail about how she was prejudiced
by Quichiz’s representation or identify any additional evidence or legal arguments she
would have made before the IJ had she been represented by someone else. The Board
concluded that Quichiz still provided Castillo-De Molina with thorough representation
by eliciting her testimony and arguing for asylum, noting that the IJ ruled on the merits
as well as the procedural issues.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Summary Dismissal
In her petition for review, Castillo-De Molina argues that the Board erred in
summarily dismissing her appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E). That regulation
allows a single Board member to summarily dismiss an appeal if the party appealing
indicates “that he or she will file a brief or statement in support of the appeal and,
thereafter, does not file such a brief or statement, or reasonably explain his or her failure
to do so, within the time set for filing.” We have repeatedly held that the Board may
summarily dismiss appeals under § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E) when parties promise to file a
brief, are warned of the consequences if they do not, and still fail to do so. See Cortina-
Chavez v. Sessions, 894 F.3d 865, 868 (7th Cir. 2018) (collecting cases).
Castillo-De Molina ignores this body of case law and instead argues that her
notice of appeal satisfied another regulation governing what a notice of appeal must
include. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(b). Indeed, she does not cite § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E) once in her
opening brief before us and offers only a conclusory argument in her reply that her

-- 5 of 7 --

No. 24-1333 Page 6
notice of appeal is sufficient to overcome the regulation’s filing requirement. But in
Kokar v. Gonzales, we rejected the idea that a notice of appeal may satisfy
§ 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E) by taking the place of the brief that regulation contemplates. 478 F.3d
803, 809–10 (7th Cir. 2007). Castillo-De Molina makes no convincing argument why we
should conclude otherwise here.
B. Motion to Reopen
Castillo-De Molina also petitions us to review the Board’s denial of her motion to
reopen, in which she asserted her counsel before the IJ was ineffective. We review the
Board’s denial of a motion to reopen for an abuse of discretion. Patel v. Gonzales, 496
F.3d 829, 831 (7th Cir. 2007). Under this “deferential” review, we will deny review
unless the Board’s decision “was made without a rational explanation, inexplicably
departed from established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis such as
invidious discrimination against a particular race or group.” Perez-Perez v. Wilkinson,
988 F.3d 371, 374 (7th Cir. 2021) (quoting Gamero v. Barr, 929 F.3d 464, 468 (7th Cir.
2019)).
Noncitizens asserting ineffective assistance of counsel claims in immigration
proceedings must follow the procedural requirements outlined in In re Lozada, 19 I. & N.
Dec. 637 (BIA 1988) and demonstrate prejudice. See Sanchez v. Sessions, 894 F.3d 858,
862–63 (7th Cir. 2018). All agree that Castillo-De Molina fulfilled the procedural
requirements, so we only discuss whether she was prejudiced by her counsel’s
performance. That prong requires Castillo-De Molina to show that her counsel’s alleged
errors “actually had the potential for affecting the outcome of the proceedings.” Id. at
862–63 (citation omitted).
Castillo-De Molina argues that she was prejudiced by her counsel’s failure to
timely submit the biometric and biographical information and by the “significant gaps
in evidence” left by her counsel’s failure to submit documentary evidence to support
her testimony. True, her counsel’s failure to submit the biometric and biographical
information provided an independent reason for the IJ to dismiss Castillo-De Molina’s
I-589 application. But the IJ still proceeded to Castillo-De Molina’s hearing at which her
counsel represented her and elicited her testimony about her experiences in El
Salvador—testimony which the IJ found credible. Based on that testimony, the IJ denied
Castillo-De Molina’s I-589 application on the merits. On that score, Castillo-De Molina
does not explain what evidence her prior counsel failed to introduce or how such
evidence would have done more than her own testimony to support her application. See
Sanchez v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 641, 647 (7th Cir. 2007) (noting the necessity of new evidence

-- 6 of 7 --

No. 24-1333 Page 7
in motions to reopen for ineffective assistance of counsel). Nor does Castillo-De Molina
explain what arguments her prior counsel failed to make based on that testimony.
Castillo-De Molina’s vague and conclusory statements of evidentiary gaps are
insufficient to show that her counsel’s failures had the potential for affecting the
outcome of her case given the IJ’s consideration of her testimony and rejection of her
arguments. The Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Castillo-De Molina’s
motion to reopen.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we DENY Castillo-De Molina’s petition for review.

-- 7 of 7 --