Elisa Leon Gonzalez; Tania Perez Leon v. Todd Blanche,1 Acting Attorney General of the United States

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1451
___________________________
Elisa Leon Gonzalez; Tania Perez Leon
Petitioners
v.
Todd Blanche,1 Acting Attorney General of the United States
Respondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: April 13, 2026
Filed: May 13, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
1 Todd Blanche was designated as Acting Attorney General of the United
States and is substituted as Respondent pursuant Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 43(c).

-- 1 of 5 --

-2-
PER CURIAM.
Elisa Leon Gonzalez and her minor daughter are citizens of El Salvador who
unlawfully entered the United States in November 2018. Shortly after entering the
United States, the Department of Homeland Security served Gonzalez and her
daughter with Notices to Appear in Immigration Court for removal proceedings. On
November 21, 2019, Gonzalez appeared pro se at a removal hearing and admitted
her and her daughter’s unlawful presence. The Immigration Judge provided
Gonzalez with an application for asylum and instructed her to return on
December 12 with a completed application. Gonzalez subsequently applied for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations
Convention Against Torture.
In her application, Gonzalez asserted protection based on her membership in
a particular social group and fear of harm or mistreatment if she returned to El
Salvador. Gonzalez stated that her partner had witnessed a murder committed by
gang members, after which the gang members extorted money from her family in
exchange for protection. According to Gonzalez, when her family could no longer
afford to pay the extortion, gang members threatened to harm her family. Gonzalez
described one situation where she was threatened at gunpoint and pushed after her
family stopped paying the extortion. Gonzalez explained that her family fled to the
United States shortly after that incident, and that she feared the gang members would
kill her and her children if she returned to El Salvador.
On January 11, 2023, the Immigration Judge denied Gonzalez’s asylum
application, denied withholding of removal, and denied protection under the
Convention Against Torture. The Immigration Judge found Gonzalez credible but
concluded that she was ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal because
“persons who suffered violence or threats of violence by gangs lack[] the requisite
visibility, particularity, and/or social distinction to qualify as a particular social
group.” The Immigration Judge also concluded that Gonzalez did not qualify for
protection under the Convention Against Torture because, despite her fear of gang

-- 2 of 5 --

-3-
violence, she “failed to prove that . . . [s]he would be tortured, if removed to El
Salvador, at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official
or other person acting in an official capacity.”
Gonzalez, through counsel, appealed the Immigration Judge’s denial of
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture to the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “Board”). Notice of Appeal Form
EOIR-26 instructs petitioners to “[s]tate in detail the reason(s) for this appeal.”
Immediately below this area, a warning reads: “You must clearly explain the specific
facts and law on which you base your appeal of the Immigration Judge’s decision.
The Board may summarily dismiss your appeal if it cannot tell from this Notice of
Appeal, or any statements attached to this Notice of Appeal, why you are appealing.”
Gonzalez stated the basis for her appeal as: “The IJ erred in not granting asylum,
withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture and for
holding that I did not meet the standards as set forth by law. I reserve the right to
present additional arguments in my appellate brief.”
Gonzalez also checked the box on Form EOIR-26 indicating she intended to
file a separate written brief or statement in support of her appeal. Below this box,
Form EOIR-26 contains another warning: “If you mark “Yes” in item #8, you will
be expected to file a written brief or statement after you receive a briefing schedule
from the Board. The Board may summarily dismiss your appeal if you do not file a
brief or statement within the time set in the briefing schedule.” The Board sent
Gonzalez a copy of the asylum hearing transcript and the Immigration Judge’s
decision on August 16, 2023, and indicated that her appeal brief was due by
September 6, 2023. Gonzalez failed to file a brief by this deadline.
On January 26, 2024, an attorney representing Gonzalez sent the Board a letter
asking for another copy of the hearing transcript. On February 2, 2024, the Board
again provided a copy of the hearing transcript and the Immigration Judge’s decision
and reset the briefing deadline to February 23, 2024. On February 21, Gonzalez’s
attorney sought an extension of the deadline, but that request was denied because the

-- 3 of 5 --

-4-
attorney had not entered an appearance in the matter. Gonzalez’s attorney entered
an appearance on February 28, five days after the briefing deadline, but did not file
an appellate brief.
On April 1, Gonzalez’s attorney moved the Board to accept an untimely brief.
In support of the motion, Gonzalez’s attorney explained that he was unable to timely
file the brief because two paralegals had abruptly left his practice, leaving him
understaffed, and “there was insufficient time to request a motion to extend the
briefing deadline.” The Board denied the motion, saying counsel’s reason for the
late filing was insufficient.
On February 3, 2025, the Board summarily dismissed Gonzalez’s appeal,
concluding that “[t]he Notice of Appeal does not contain statements that
meaningfully apprise the Board of specific reasons underlying the challenge to the
Immigration Judge’s decision.” The Board also concluded that Gonzalez’s failure
to file an appellate brief after indicating her intent to do so independently subjected
her appeal to summary dismissal.
Gonzalez now petitions for review of the Board’s summary dismissal of her
appeal. She contends the Board should have resolved her appeal on the merits and
reversed the Immigration Judge’s decision to deny asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We review the Board’s
summary dismissal of Gonzalez’s appeal for abuse of discretion. See Uddin v. Att’y
Gen. United States, 870 F.3d 282, 288 (3d Cir. 2017); Nolasco-Amaya v. Garland,
14 F.4th 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2021).
The Board may summarily dismiss an appeal if “[t]he party concerned fails to
specify the reasons for the appeal on Form EOIR-26.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A).
The Board may also summarily dismiss an appeal if “[t]he party concerned indicates
on Form EOIR-26 . . . that he or she will file a brief or statement in support of the
appeal and, thereafter, does not file such brief or statement, or reasonably explain

-- 4 of 5 --

-5-
his or her failure to do so, within the time set for filing.” Id. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E).
Both grounds for dismissal apply here.
Gonzalez’s conclusory statement that “[t]he IJ erred by not granting asylum,
withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture” fails
to provide the Board with any indication of how the Immigration Judge purportedly
erred. The statement does not identify any erroneous findings of fact and, to the
extent it identifies errors of law, fails to identify supporting authority. Because
Gonzalez’s Notice of Appeal fails to specifically identify the basis for her appeal,
the Board did not abuse its discretion by dismissing her appeal. See Soriano v.
I.N.S., 45 F.3d 287, 287 (8th Cir. 1995) (finding no abuse of discretion where the
petitioner failed to inform the Board of what factual and legal errors an Immigration
Judge made); see also Mbah v. Barr, 818 Fed. Appx. 240, 240-41 (4th Cir. 2020)
(unpublished) (general conclusory statements without identifying specific factual or
legal errors are insufficient to maintain an appeal).
Gonzalez’s failure to file an appeal brief after indicating her intent to do so
also supports the Board’s summary dismissal. Form EOIR-26 expressly warned
Gonzalez of the consequences of failing to submit a brief. While Gonzalez’s
attorney did seek leave to file a brief out of time citing workload concerns, the Board
declined to receive the untimely filing because counsel failed to show good cause
for the delay. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c)(1) (workload concerns do not constitute
exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of briefing deadlines). Because
Gonzalez failed to follow the procedures governing the appeals process, the Board
did not abuse its discretion by dismissing her appeal. See Cortina-Chavez v.
Sessions, 894 F.3d 865, 867-68 (7th Cir. 2018) (failure to file a brief is grounds for
summary dismissal).
The petition for review is denied.
______________________________

-- 5 of 5 --