Gonzales-Alarcon v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 23, 2025
• Docket: 23-1996
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HECTOR GONZALES-ALARCON, No. 23-1996 Agency No. Petitioner, A205-578-209 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted October 21, 2025** Phoenix, Arizona

Before: TALLMAN, BADE, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Hector Gonzales-Alarcon, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his motion to reopen immigration

proceedings. We review the denial for abuse of discretion. Cui v. Garland, 13 F.4th

* 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). 991, 995 (9th Cir. 2021). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny

the petition.

Gonzales-Alarcon raises one issue on appeal—whether the BIA acted

contrary to law when it denied his motion to reopen proceedings notwithstanding the

failure to serve him with “a Notice to Appear in a single document specifying the

time and date of the noncitizen’s removal proceedings.” Singh v. Garland, 24 F.4th

1315, 1317 (9th Cir. 2022), rev’d sub nom. Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 602 U.S.

447 (2024). He correctly points out that his initial notice to appear did not specify

the time and date of his removal proceedings. But a defective initial notice alone

does not justify reopening so long as the noncitizen was later given a written notice

“that includes ‘the new time or place of the proceedings’ and the consequences of

‘failing . . . to attend such proceedings.’” Campos-Chaves, 602 U.S. at 461–62

(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2)(A)). Gonzales-Alarcon received such notice and

indeed attended his removal hearing at the date and time specified in that notice.

Accordingly, the BIA did not act contrary to law in denying his motion.

PETITION DENIED.

2 23-1996