Alfaro-Castro v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 11, 2026
• Docket: 22-488
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 11 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN JOSE ALFARO-CASTRO, No. 22-488 Agency No. Petitioner, A205-528-040 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted February 9, 2026** Pasadena, California

Before: OWENS, VANDYKE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Concurrence by Judge VANDYKE. Juan Jose Alfaro-Castro is a native and citizen of Mexico. He petitions for

review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his

appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation

of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “Where, as here, the BIA

* 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). reviewed the IJ’s factual findings for clear error, and reviewed de novo all other

issues, our review is ‘limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent the IJ’s

opinion is expressly adopted.’” Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 658 (9th Cir.

2019) (quoting Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006)). We deny

the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Alfaro-

Castro’s removal would not result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship

to his minor children under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).1 The agency properly

considered his minor children’s ages, health, and circumstances in reaching its

determination. See Gonzalez-Juarez v. Bondi, 137 F.4th 996, 1006 (9th Cir. 2025)

(citing In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 65 (BIA 2001)).

2. The agency did not err in rejecting Alfaro-Castro’s argument that his

initial Notice to Appear (“NTA”) was deficient because it lacked the date and time

of his hearing. Our precedent forecloses any jurisdictional argument, as Alfaro-

Castro received a subsequent notice that contained the date, time, and place for his

hearing. See United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1193 (9th Cir.

2022) (en banc) (holding that “an undated NTA that is subsequently supplemented

with a notice of hearing fully complies” with statutory requirements). And Alfaro-

1 To the extent that Alfaro-Castro disputes the IJ’s underlying factual findings, we lack jurisdiction to review those findings. See Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 225 (2024).

2 22-488 Castro failed to exhaust any due process argument before the agency, see Umana-

Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023), and additionally forfeited

such an argument on appeal by failing to “specifically and distinctly” argue how

the agency violated his due process rights or what prejudice he suffered as a result,

Hernandez v. Garland, 47 F.4th 908, 916 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Velasquez-

Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2020)).

3. The agency did not err in finding Alfaro-Castro removable based on

evidence contained in a Form I-213. “Admission of a Form I-213 ‘is fair absent

evidence of coercion or that the statements are not those of the petitioner.’”

Sanchez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (quoting

Espinoza v. INS, 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995)). There is no indication in the

record that this form was “manifestly incorrect” or “obtained by duress.” Id.

(quoting Barradas v. Holder, 582 F.3d 754, 763 (7th Cir. 2009)).

PETITION DENIED.2

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

3 22-488 FILED FEB 11 2026 Alfaro-Castro v. Bondi, No. 22-488 VANDYKE, Circuit Judge, concurring: MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

For the reasons stated in Rojas-Espinoza v. Bondi, 160 F.4th 991 (9th Cir.

2025) (per curiam)—and because Petitioner showed no likelihood of success on the

merits—I would not leave the temporary stay of removal in place.