Background
Mohammad Islam, a Bangladeshi citizen and national, entered the United States in December 2024. After he demonstrated a credible fear of persecution, an expedited-removal order was vacated and he entered removal proceedings. At a May 7, 2025 hearing, the immigration judge ordered Islam to file his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection by May 15. The judge expressly warned that failure to meet the deadline would result in the applications being deemed abandoned and Islam being ordered removed.
The immigration court did not receive Islam’s application by the deadline, and the immigration judge ordered him removed on May 15. The application arrived on May 28. On appeal, Islam asserted that he had delivered the completed application to a detention officer for mailing on May 13, but he submitted no affidavit supporting that account. The Board of Immigration Appeals treated his appeal as including a motion to remand and concluded that his statements in the brief and a May 10 mailing receipt that did not identify the package’s contents failed to establish good cause for the late filing.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to review the denial of remand because the relevant discretion to set and enforce filing deadlines comes from federal regulations, rather than from a statutory grant of discretion covered by the jurisdictional bar. Applying deferential abuse-of-discretion review, the court upheld the BIA’s decision. Unsworn statements in a brief were not evidence, and the mailing receipt did not show that Islam’s application had been mailed. The BIA therefore had record support for finding that Islam failed to establish good cause for missing the deadline.
The court also rejected Islam’s due-process claim. The BIA had considered his brief and mailing receipt, and Islam did not establish substantial prejudice in any event. His conclusory assertions about physical attacks, death threats, political targeting, and loss of state protection did not make the required prima facie showing that he was eligible for relief or could have made a strong showing on his applications.
Finally, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Islam’s prisoner-mailbox-rule and equitable-tolling arguments because he had not presented them to the BIA. The court denied the petition for review.
Key Takeaways
- An immigration judge may set application deadlines and deem relief abandoned when an applicant fails to file on time.
- A motion to remand based on additional evidence must be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material; assertions in a brief do not themselves constitute evidence.
- A due-process challenge requires substantial prejudice, including a prima facie showing of eligibility for the underlying immigration relief.
- Arguments not raised before the BIA, including mailbox-rule and equitable-tolling theories, are unexhausted and outside the court’s jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the evidentiary burden on noncitizens seeking relief after missing an immigration-court filing deadline. A narrative supplied only through counsel’s brief, coupled with a receipt that does not identify what was mailed, may be insufficient to establish timely mailing or good cause.
It also distinguishes reviewable discretion created by regulation from discretion specified by statute, while reinforcing that litigants must present each legal theory to the BIA before seeking judicial review.