Edwards v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 10, 2025
• Docket: 24-5420
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 10 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL GEORGE ANTHONY No. 24-5420 EDWARDS, Agency No. A214-126-568 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted October 8, 2025** Las Vegas, Nevada

Before: BENNETT, SANCHEZ, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Michael George Anthony Edwards is a native and citizen of Jamaica. He

petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

summarily dismissing his appeal of an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)

* 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). denying his motion to reopen and rescind an in absentia removal order. 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 deny the petition.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Edwards’

appeal where the notice of appeal was untimely, and Edwards failed to demonstrate

extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely appeal. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(G); see also Matter of Morales-Morales, 28 I. & N. Dec. 714,

717 (BIA 2023). Edwards’ inability to pay the filing fee here does not constitute an

extraordinary circumstance warranting equitable tolling. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.38(b), (d). Edwards offers no explanation for why he could not have

submitted a fee waiver request with his notice of appeal. The cases he cites about

delivery service errors do not show why the circumstances he faced were

extraordinary. See Irigoyen-Briones v. Holder, 644 F.3d 943, 951 (9th Cir. 2011);

see also Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 613–14 (9th Cir. 2005).

PETITION DENIED.

2 24-5420