Cabrera-Pineda v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 20, 2025
• Docket: 25-2241
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 20 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RHINA IRIS CABRERA-PINEDA; et al., No. 25-2241 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A208-543-103 A208-543-101 v. A208-543-102 PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent.

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

Submitted October 15, 2025**

Before: FRIEDLAND, MILLER, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

Rhina Iris Cabrera-Pineda and her children, natives and citizens of El

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

order summarily dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”)

decision denying their application for asylum and Cabrera-Pineda’s applications

* 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). for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the

BIA’s summary dismissal of an appeal. Nolasco-Amaya v. Garland, 14 F.4th 1007,

1012 (9th Cir. 2021). We review de novo questions of law and 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 summarily dismissing petitioners’

appeal where the notice of appeal did not identify specific challenges to the IJ’s

decision, and petitioners did not file a separate written brief despite stating that

they would. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A), (E); see also Singh v. Ashcroft, 361

F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary dismissal appropriate where notice of

appeal lacked sufficient specificity and no separate written brief was filed).

Petitioners’ claim that the BIA’s summary dismissal violated due process

fails because petitioners have not shown error. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770

F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner

must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”); see also Singh v.

Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1014-15 (9th Cir. 2005) (summary dismissal for failure

to file a brief or specify the grounds for appeal did not violate petitioner’s due

process rights).

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

2 25-2241 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.

The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 25-2241