Acevedo-Rivera v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 3, 2025
• Docket: 24-4671
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DORA ACEVEDO-RIVERA; et al., No. 24-4671 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A202-077-834 v. A202-077-835 A202-077-836 PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, A202-077-837 Respondent. MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 21, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Dora Acevedo-Rivera and her children, natives and citizens of El Salvador,

petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

denying their motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, and de

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). novo constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th

Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider

where petitioners failed to identify any error of fact or law in the BIA’s prior

decision upholding the immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). See

8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6); Ma v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 553, 558 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A

petitioner’s motion to reconsider must identify a legal or factual error in the BIA’s

prior decision.”); see also United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187,

1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (lack of hearing information in notice to

appear does not deprive immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction, and

8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) is satisfied when later notice provides hearing information).

Petitioners’ challenge to the BIA’s determination that their claim-processing

contention is untimely is unsupported. See Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th at 1191

(claim-processing violations may be forfeited if the party asserting the rule waits

too long to raise them); see also Matters of Larios-Gutierrez De Pablo and Pablo-

Larios, 28 I. & N. Dec. 868, 874-75 (BIA 2024).

Petitioners do not challenge the agency’s determination that they failed to

state an ineffective assistance of counsel claim or its decision not to reopen

proceedings sua sponte, so we do not address these issues. See Lopez-Vasquez v.

2 24-4671 Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).

We do not address petitioners’ contentions as to the merits of their asylum

and related claims because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See

Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing

the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 24-4671