Cortez Rodriguez v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 8, 2025
• Docket: 24-5759
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 8 2025

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT1

MARIA JOVITA CORTEZ RODRIGUEZ; No. 24-5759 et al., Agency Nos. Petitioners, A208-117-552 A208-117-553 v. A208-117-554 A208-117-555 PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, A208-117-556

Respondent. MEMORANDUM*

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

Submitted December 4, 2025** Portland, Oregon

Before: **** MCKEOWN and SUNG, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District Judge.

* 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). *** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. Petitioner Maria Jovita Cortez Rodriguez (“Cortez Rodriguez”), a native and

citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”)

dismissal of her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ’s”) finding that she abandoned

her application for relief because she failed to comply with the biometrics

requirement.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the

petition.

1. We review for abuse of discretion a decision to deem an application

abandoned. See Gonzalez-Veliz v. Garland, 996 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 2021).

2. The IJ has authority to deem an application abandoned for failure to comply

with the biometrics requirement. Id. (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c)). On multiple

occasions the IJ informed Cortez Rodriguez that she needed to complete the

biometrics requirement, detailed how to do so, and explained the consequences of

failing to comply. Cortez Rodriguez does not dispute that she was informed of the

biometrics requirement and of the consequences of failing to comply with it. She also

does not contest that she failed to complete the biometrics requirement.

3. An applicant may be excused from her failure to comply with the biometrics

requirement if the failure was the result of good cause. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.47(c),

1 Cortez Rodriguez’s four children are listed as petitioners in this case. Because their claims are derivative of their mother’s, we do not discuss them separately. -2- 1208.10. Cortez Rodriguez has not established that her failure was the result of good

cause. Her pro se status and English language difficulties, standing alone, do not

constitute good cause, especially since she indicated that she understood the IJ. See

Gonzalez-Veliz, 996 F.3d at 945, 949 (deeming application abandoned and finding no

good cause where applicant had trouble understanding English but acknowledged IJ’s

instructions); cf. Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 2008) (concluding

that IJ abused discretion in denying continuance to resubmit fingerprints where

fingerprinting instructions were not provided to applicant). Her prior failed attempts

to comply with the biometrics requirement likewise do not provide good cause. See

Gonzalez-Veliz, 996 F.3d at 948 (concluding that an inadequate prior attempt to

comply with biometrics requirement did not relieve applicant of duty to comply).

Furthermore, the fact that Cortez Rodriguez was fingerprinted upon arrival to

the United States is immaterial given that she was repeatedly instructed after her

arrival that she needed to complete the biometrics requirement. Likewise, her

contention that, because she would fare better under the Department of Homeland

Security’s (“DHS’s”) current biometrics instructions, her past noncompliance should

be excused for good cause, is unavailing. Her noncompliance with the instructions

DHS provided her during the period in which she applied for relief is what matters.

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c) (“Failure to file necessary documentation and comply with

-3- the requirements to provide biometrics . . . in conformity with . . . instructions

provided by DHS, within the time allowed by the [IJ’s] order, constitutes

abandonment[.]”).

4. Because there was an absence of good cause to excuse Cortez Rodriguez’s

failure to comply with the biometrics requirement, the agency did not abuse its

discretion in finding that her application was abandoned.2

PETITION DENIED.

2 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. -4-