Gallardo Jimenez v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 12, 2026
• Docket: 24-4444
• Status: Unpublished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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 12 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESUS GALLARDO JIMENEZ, No. 24-4444 Agency No. Petitioner, A202-099-394 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.***

Jesus Gallardo Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). In

* 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. that order, the BIA summarily dismissed the appeal of an Immigration Judge’s

denial of Gallardo’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal and relief

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), because he failed to timely file an

administrative brief and his appeal notice did not explain the specific reasons he

was contesting the IJ’s decision. The BIA also denied Gallardo’s motion to accept

his late brief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the

petition.

1. The BIA acted within its discretion by summarily dismissing Gallardo’s

appeal, because he failed to timely file his brief, despite indicating his intent to do

so. Gallardo’s Notice of Appeal only stated that the IJ “erred as a matter of law and

discretion in not granting asylum, withholding, CAT.” This single sentence did not

meaningfully apprise the BIA of his specific disputes with the IJ’s decision. See

Nolasco-Amaya v. Garland, 14 F.4th 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2021).

2. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Gallardo’s motion to accept

his late-filed brief. “The applicable regulation indicates that the BIA could have

considered his brief in its discretion”; however, it “was under no obligation to do

so.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1013 (9th Cir. 2010). In this case, Gallardo

had been (1) provided with a briefing extension; and (2) informed of the

consequences of filing an untimely brief. Nevertheless, Gallardo filed his brief

eight months after the extended deadline had lapsed, claiming the delay was

2 24-4444 attributable to the illness of his attorney’s law partner and the death of the partner’s

father. However, both these events predated the original filing deadline. Thus, we

cannot conclude that the BIA “act[ed] arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to the

law” in denying the motion. See id.

3. The BIA did not violate Gallardo’s due process rights. “A petition for review

will only be granted on due process grounds if (1) the proceeding was so

fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably presenting his

case, and (2) the alien demonstrates prejudice, which means that the outcome of

the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation.” Id. Gallardo has

not established that his proceeding was fundamentally unfair. As outlined above,

the BIA properly explained why it declined to accept Gallardo’s brief and why it

summarily dismissed his appeal. Accordingly, there was no due process violation.

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

The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

PETITION DENIED.

3 24-4444