Raymundo-Lima v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 15, 2025
• Docket: 23-2436
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 15 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WALTER ERNESTO RAYMUNDO- No. 23-2436 LIMA, Agency No. A077-260-082 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted October 10, 2025** Las Vegas, Nevada

Before: BENNETT, SANCHEZ, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Walter Ernesto Raymundo-Lima is a native and citizen of El Salvador. He

petitions for review of a notice from an immigration court rejecting his attempt to

file a third motion to reopen. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. See 8

U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) (jurisdiction over final orders of removal).

* 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 notice issued by the Office of Chief Counsel at the Las Vegas

immigration court is not a “final order of removal.” See Alcala v. Holder, 563 F.3d

1009, 1016 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[W]here there is no final order of removal, this court

lacks jurisdiction even where a constitutional claim or question of law is raised.”).

Raymundo-Lima does not address whether the notice is itself reviewable and has

therefore forfeited the issue. See Hernandez v. Garland, 47 F.4th 908, 916 (9th Cir.

2022) (holding that issues not “specifically and distinctly” argued in a party’s

opening brief are forfeited). Nor does he challenge in his brief the propriety of the

immigration court issuing the notice in the first instance. See id.

PETITION DISMISSED.1

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

2 23-2436