Gamez-Reyes v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 14, 2025
• Docket: 22-1449
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 14 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DIANA GAMEZ-REYES, No. 22-1449 Agency No. Petitioner, A213-082-636 v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

DIANA GAMEZ-REYES, No. 23-2681 Agency No. Petitioner, A213-082-636 v.

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

Submitted February 12, 2025** Pasadena, California

* 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). Before: GRABER, HAMILTON***, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Diana Gamez-Reyes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of her motion to reopen

and dismissal of her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her motion

to suppress and cancellation of her removal application. We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), we consolidated her petitions, and we deny the petitions.

Because the BIA conducted its own independent review of the evidence and

law in this case, our review is limited to the BIA’s decision. Vitug v. Holder, 723

F.3d 1056, 1062 (9th Cir. 2013). We review the denial of a motion to reopen for an

abuse of discretion and examine whether the BIA’s “decision is arbitrary, irrational,

or contrary to law.” Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016) (cleaned

up). “We review de novo the denial of a motion to suppress.” Martinez-Medina v.

Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1033 (9th Cir. 2011). Finally, we review the BIA’s hardship

determination for abuse of discretion. See Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 225

(2024) (holding that “deferential” review applies to the BIA’s hardship

determination); see also Martinez v. Clark, 124 F.4th 775, 784 (9th Cir. 2024)

(explaining the standard of review for mixed questions of law and fact).

*** The Honorable David F. Hamilton, United States Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, sitting by designation.

2 23-2681 1. The BIA’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to reopen was not “arbitrary,

irrational, or contrary to law.” Bonilla, 840 F.3d at 581. The BIA relied on our

precedent in determining that any deficiencies in Petitioner’s Notice to Appear

(“NTA”) did not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction over her removal

proceedings. See United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1193 (9th Cir.

2022) (en banc) (holding that Ҥ 1003.14(a) is a nonjurisdictional claim-processing

rule”). Moreover, the initial NTA was properly supplemented, and Petitioner

appeared at the hearing with counsel. Therefore, no due process violation occurred.

See Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 645 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that substantial

prejudice is a required element of a due process claim).

2. No Fourth Amendment violation occurred. As relevant here, for the

exclusionary rule to apply in removal proceedings, Petitioner must establish “a prima

facie case of an egregious . . . Fourth Amendment violation.” B.R. v. Garland, 26

F.4th 827, 842 (9th Cir. 2022). Petitioner was arrested for domestic battery in

violation of state law. A routine biometrics check after Petitioner’s arrest revealed

her citizenship and immigration history. See Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435, 461

(2013) (no Fourth Amendment violation from routine administrative steps incident

to arrest, such as booking, photographing, and fingerprinting). This information

provided sufficient “reason to believe” Petitioner was a noncitizen “illegally in the

United States.” 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(i).

3 23-2681 3. The BIA did not err in finding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate

sufficient hardship to warrant cancellation of removal. In considering all the

relevant factors, the BIA found that the effect of Petitioner’s removal on her

teenaged son did not pose an “exceptional or extremely unusual hardship.” 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229b(b)(1)(D). The BIA adopted the IJ’s factual finding that any such hardship

would be typical for a teenager transitioning to a new country. The BIA then applied

this finding to the correct legal standard. Matter of J-J-G-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 808, 813

(BIA 2020) (“[E]vidence that a qualifying relative will experience a ‘lower standard

of living’ in the country of removal, including a lower standard of medical care, ‘will

be insufficient in [itself] to support a finding of exceptional and extremely unusual

hardship.’” (quoting Matter of Monreal, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 63–64 (BIA 2001))).

Thus, no abuse of discretion occurred here.

4. The BIA permissibly declined to reach arguments pertaining to the IJ’s

alternative ruling that Petitioner was ineligible for cancellation because she lacked

good moral character. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25–26 (1976) (per

curiam) (“As a general rule courts and agencies are not required to make findings on

issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.”). Part II of

Petitioner’s brief to the BIA challenged the IJ’s moral-character determination and

the IJ’s denial of admission of some documents. Part III of the brief challenged the

IJ’s hardship determination. Petitioner accurately points to a single line in Part II of

4 23-2681 the brief that asserted—without elaboration—that the documents were relevant to

both the moral-character and hardship determinations. But, without any explanation

as to how the documents pertained to hardship, the BIA permissibly viewed the

documents-related argument as pertaining solely to moral character. Any error was

harmless, because Petitioner suffered no prejudice; it is unlikely that the documents

would have changed the BIA’s hardship determination. See Zamorano v. Garland,

2 F.4th 1213, 1227–28 (9th Cir. 2021) (reviewing for harmless error the BIA’s

failure to address an issue and rejecting the petitioner’s argument for lack of

prejudice).

PETITIONS DENIED.

5 23-2681