Baro v. Blanche – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The court affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of equitable tolling, holding that the thirty-day appeal deadline is a mandatory claim-processing rule and that the Board's application of the equitable tolling standard was not clearly erroneous.
Standard: Deferential review for equitable tolling determinations.
Vote: Unanimous decision to deny the petition for review.
Practical effect: This decision reinforces the strictness of appeal deadlines in immigration proceedings while confirming that equitable tolling remains available but requires rigorous proof of both extraordinary circumstances and diligent effort.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of equitable tolling for a late asylum appeal, clarifying that the thirty-day filing deadline is a mandatory claim-processing rule subject to deferential review.

Background

Sona Baro, a Guinean national who fled domestic abuse and female genital mutilation, sought asylum and withholding of removal in the United States. An immigration judge denied her application, finding it untimely and insufficient under the law. Baro missed the thirty-day deadline to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals due to a severe sickle-cell disease crisis, the time needed to secure new counsel, and the new counsel’s own medical issues. The Board denied her request for equitable tolling, citing a lack of objective medical evidence for continued disability and insufficient diligence.

The court’s reasoning

The court held that the thirty-day filing deadline is a mandatory claim-processing rule rather than a jurisdictional limit, allowing for equitable tolling in appropriate cases. The court applied the Supreme Court’s two-part test for equitable tolling, requiring a showing of extraordinary circumstances and due diligence. The court found the Board’s conclusion that Baro failed to meet this standard was supported by the record, noting the lack of evidence that her condition prevented her from acting sooner and the significant delays caused by her own choices and her attorney’s schedule.

We agree with this decision and deny Baro’s petition for review.

Baro v. Blanche, No. 25-3894 (6th Cir. June 16, 2026)

What it means going forward

This decision reinforces the strictness of appeal deadlines in immigration proceedings while confirming that equitable tolling remains available but requires rigorous proof of both extraordinary circumstances and diligent effort.