The Seventh Circuit has found that the Board of Immigration Appeals abused its discretion when it denied a motion to accept a late-filed brief filed by a respondent who had only received his record of proceedings days before the briefing deadline. “The Board provided only two reasons for denying Olu‐ wajana’s motion to submit a brief out of time: (1) the second request for an extension of the briefing deadline was denied, and (2) the brief was received 33 days late. Neither basis supports the Board’s decision. First, the mere fact that the Board denied a second extension request cannot justify the rejection of a late brief. The agency’s own regulation prohibits the Board from extending the briefing deadline more than ‘one time per case.’ But the same regulation goes on to say that the Board ‘may consider a brief that has been filed out of time.’ Thus, the Board’s rules envision that a late brief may be accepted even though a second extension of the briefing deadline is barred. It was nonsensical for the Board to deny Oluwajana permissible relief because he was not first granted relief that the Board’s rules prohibit. We will not sustain a decision based on the Board’s interpretation of its rules that causes ‘unreasonable, unfair, and absurd re‐sults.’ Next, and more obviously, the Board clearly erred in finding that Oluwajana submitted his brief 33 days late. After the Board granted the initial request to extend the briefing dead‐ line, the due date was February 24, 2021, not February 3. So, when Oluwajana submitted his brief on March 8, it was only 12 days past due, not the month and more stated in the Board’s order. The Board abuses its discretion when it exercises that discretion based on factual determinations ‘contrary to the detailed evidence in the record.’”
The full text of Oluwajana v. Garland can be found here:
An amended opinion can be found here: