Summary
This First Circuit per curiam opinion dismisses an undocumented Brazilian national's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals removal order because it was filed three days past the statutory deadline. The court addresses whether the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure's mailbox rule applies to nonelectronic filings by non-inmates and concludes that timely receipt by the clerk remains a mandatory element of filing. Consequently, the court holds that it lacks authority under Rule 26(b)(2) to grant a good-cause extension for the untimely receipt of the petition.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a petition for review mailed but not received by the clerk by the statutory deadline is timely under 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(1) and Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A)(i).
- Whether the court may extend the filing deadline under Fed. R. App. P. 26(b)(2) when the petition was not timely received.
Holdings
- A petition for review that is mailed but not received by the clerk within the statutory deadline is not timely filed.
- The court may not extend the time for filing a petition for review that was not timely received; Rule 26(b)(2) bars any extension of time for untimely petitions.
Key quotations
“We reject Quinn-Goncalves's argument that, under the reasoning of Houston, we should read section 1252(b)(1) to treat a petition for review as filed when mailed.” (at ___)
Factual background
Igor Quinn-Goncalves, an undocumented Brazilian citizen, was detained throughout the proceedings. He mailed his petition for review on the last day to file, but the clerk did not receive it until three days after the deadline.
Procedural history
The Board of Immigration Appeals denied the petitioner's appeal of an immigration judge's removal order. The petitioner filed a petition for review in the First Circuit after the statutory deadline. The court considered whether the filing was timely and whether it could extend time under Rule 26(b)(2).