9th Cir.

Salvador-Silvestre v. Blanche

June 24, 2026 ·25-2828 ·Unpublished · By James Taylor

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed a petition for review of an immigration order because it was filed more than seven months after the Board of Immigration Appeals decision. The court found the filing untimely under federal statute and determined the petitioners failed to demonstrate the extraordinary circumstances required for equitable tolling.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:18

Background

Petitioners Joaquin Tomas Salvador-Silvestre, Silda Anabella Mendez-Pascual, and their daughter I.A.J.M. sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal of an Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Board’s decision was filed on September ninth, two thousand and twenty-four, while the petitioners filed their petition for review on May first, two thousand and twenty-five.

The court’s reasoning

The court held that the petition was untimely under Section twelve hundred fifty-two subsection one of Title eight of the United States Code. Although the statutory deadline is non-jurisdictional, the petitioners did not satisfy the requirements for equitable tolling. The court found that the Board’s cover letters created a rebuttable presumption of mailing, which the petitioners failed to overcome with unsworn statements or declarations. Furthermore, no evidence was presented regarding the diligence of the petitioners or their counsel in attempting to ascertain the status of the case.

What it means going forward

The dismissal reinforces the strict adherence required to the thirty-day filing window for immigration appeals and clarifies that unsworn statements are insufficient to rebut the presumption of mailing for Board decisions.