Gutierrez v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 16, 2025
• Docket: 21-32
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 16 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ADOLFO JAVIER GUTIERREZ; et al., No. 21-32 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A201-918-449 A201-918-448 v.

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

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

Submitted July 15, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Adolfo Javier Gutierrez and his minor daughter, natives and citizens of

Honduras, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision

denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings and rescind a removal order

* 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). entered in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400

F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to

reopen where they failed to establish lack of proper notice. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229a(b)(5)(A), (C)(ii); see also Dobrota v. INS, 311 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir.

2002) (agency “may generally satisfy notice requirements by mailing notice of the

hearing to . . . the address last provided.”).

Petitioners’ contentions regarding sua sponte reopening and equitable relief

are not properly before this court because petitioners did not raise them before the

BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (administrative remedies must be exhausted); see

also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 417-19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1)

is not jurisdictional).

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

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 21-32