Murga-Lopez v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 28, 2025
• Docket: 23-3563
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA LILIA MURGA- No. 23-3563 LOPEZ; MARTIN ROMERO- Agency Nos. REYES; JESUS EDUARDO ROMERO- A209-168-636 MURGA; OSCAR URIEL ROMERO- A209-168-675 MURGA, A209-168-676 A209-168-637 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted April 4, 2025** Phoenix, Arizona

Before: HAWKINS, WALLACH***, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

* 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 Evan J. Wallach, United States Senior Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. Petitioners are natives and citizens of Mexico. They petition for review of

their motion to reopen their waived CAT claim.1 We review denials of motions to

reopen for abuse of discretion. See Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir.

2016). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it relied on waiver to deny the

motion to reopen. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 321–22 (1992). Petitioners did

not challenge the BIA’s earlier determination that they waived their CAT claim, and

the BIA’s subsequent reliance on that waiver finding is “a determination that even

if” the requirements that permit the BIA to grant the motion “were satisfied, the

movant would not be entitled to [a] discretionary grant of relief.” Najmabadi v.

Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Doherty, 502 U.S. at 323

(1992)).

PETITION DENIED.2

1 Petitioners also sought reopening because they alleged their notices to appear were defective, but do not pursue that claim before us. This argument is therefore forfeited. See Frank v. Schultz, 808 F.3d 762, 763 n.3 (9th Cir. 2015). 2 Petitioners’ motion to stay removal, Dkt. 12, is denied as moot.

2 23-3563