Lopez Andino v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 26, 2025
• Docket: 24-1881
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DARWIN RAND LOPEZ-ANDINO, No. 24-1881 Agency No. Petitioner, A212-987-684 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted June 18, 2025 **

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Darwin Rand Lopez-Andino, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro

se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary dismissal of

his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

* 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). Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the

BIA’s summary dismissal of an appeal for abuse of discretion. Nolasco-Amaya v.

Garland, 14 F.4th 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2021). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Lopez-

Andino’s appeal where the notice of appeal did not identify specific challenges to

the IJ’s decision, and Lopez-Andino did not file a separate written brief despite

stating he would. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A), (E); see also Singh v. Ashcroft,

361 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary dismissal appropriate where notice

of appeal lacked sufficient specificity and no separate written brief was filed).

We do not address Lopez-Andino’s contentions as to his eligibility for

asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection because the BIA did not

dismiss on these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829

(9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the

grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)).

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

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 24-1881