Cos-Chaj v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 12, 2026
• Docket: 24-7712
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 12 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ISABEL GRACIELA COS-CHAJ; No. 24-7712 ANTONIO ISAIAS CATINAC COS; Agency Nos. REYNA FABIOLA YANETH CATINAC A220-583-364 COS, A220-583-365 A220-583-366 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted March 10, 2026** Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LIBURDI, 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 Michael T. Liburdi, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. Cos Chaj and her minor children (collectively, “Petitioners”), natives and

citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) dismissal of their appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

We review the BIA’s decision declining to accept a late-filed appeal brief, and

its determination to deem issues waived based on that rejection, for abuse of

discretion. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010). The BIA

abuses its discretion when it acts “arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to the law.” Id.

(quoting Singh v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 213 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir.

2000)).

1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in declining to accept the late-filed

brief. The governing regulation provides that the BIA “may” extend the briefing

deadline, confirming the discretionary nature of the decision. 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.3(c)(1); see Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1012. The BIA explained that Petitioners’

stated rationale was “insufficient” to warrant the exercise of discretion. That

explanation mirrors language approved in Zetino and was neither arbitrary nor

irrational. See 622 F.3d at 1010–13.

2. The BIA likewise did not abuse its discretion in limiting its review to

the Notice of Appeal after rejecting the untimely brief. See id. at 1012–14.

2 24-7712 Petitioners did not challenge the IJ’s adverse credibility determination in their Notice

of Appeal, and the BIA reasonably deemed that issue waived. See Rodas-Mendoza

v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 246 F.3d 1237, 1240 (9th Cir. 2001). Because the

adverse credibility finding was dispositive of Petitioners’ asylum and withholding

of removal claims, the BIA did not err in declining to reach the IJ’s remaining

alternative grounds. The BIA likewise reasonably deemed Petitioners’ claim for

CAT protection waived, as the Notice of Appeal did not challenge the IJ’s denial of

CAT relief. Nor have Petitioners demonstrated that enforcement of the briefing

deadline deprived them of a significant liberty interest or rendered the proceedings

fundamentally unfair. Enforcement of a filing deadline does not violate those

principles absent prejudicial agency error, which is not present here. See Zetino, 622

F.3d at 1013–14.

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. MOTION FOR STAY OF

REMOVAL DENIED.

3 24-7712