Reyes-Noriega v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 10, 2025
• Docket: 25-1637
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 10 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NELSON RAUL REYES-NORIEGA; No. 25-1637 KAREN DENISE LOPEZ-VELASQUEZ Agency Nos. DE REYES; N. R.-L., A220-310-357 A220-310-356 Petitioners, A220-310-368 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted December 5, 2025** Pasadena, California

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

Petitioners Nelson Raul Reyes-Noriega (“Reyes-Noriega”), his wife, Karen

Denise Lopez-Velasquez de Reyes (“Karen”), and their minor child are natives and

citizens of Guatemala who seek review of a decision of the Board of Immigration

* 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). Appeals (“BIA”) which denied their motion to reconsider.1 We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review denials of motions to reconsider for abuse

of discretion. B.R. v. Garland, 26 F.4th 827, 835 (9th Cir. 2022). “The BIA

abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to the law, and

when it fails to provide a reasoned explanation for its actions.” Tadevosyan v.

Holder, 743 F.3d 1250, 1252-53 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). We deny the petition.

1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioners’ motion to

reconsider because Petitioners’ motion was untimely filed. “A motion to

reconsider a decision [of the Board] must be filed with the Board within 30 days

after the mailing of the Board decision[.]” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2); see Membreno

v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1227, 1230 n.5 (9th Cir. 2005) (explaining that the court

would not grant a petition for review of the denial of an untimely motion to

reconsider). Petitioners filed their motion on November 14, 2024, nearly one year

after the BIA dismissed their appeal on November 16, 2023. Petitioners do not

1 We do not consider Petitioners’ arguments that appear to seek review of the BIA’s November 2023 decision dismissing their appeal from an Immigration Judge’s decision because, as the government asserts, they did not file a timely petition for review of that final order. See Riley v. Bondi, 606 U.S. 259, 275-77 (2025) (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)’s filing deadline is a mandatory claims processing rule); see also Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 1996) (recognizing that the finality of an underlying order was “not affected by the subsequent filing of a motion to reconsider”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2 25-1637 contest that their motion was untimely filed.

2. Even if the motion was timely, the BIA did not abuse its discretion

because Petitioners’ motion to reconsider did not “specify the errors of law or fact

in the previous order” of the BIA. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(6)(C). Petitioners’ motion

does not assert that the BIA committed legal or factual error, but instead merely

restates their arguments made in the appeal to the BIA. Contra Theagene v.

Gonzales, 411 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2005) (BIA did not abuse its discretion

granting government’s motion to reconsider because it “stated a perceived error in

law that the Board committed in reversing the immigration judge.”).

PETITION DENIED.2

2 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. The motion for a stay of removal, Dkt. 2, is otherwise denied.

3 25-1637