Rivas-Garcia v. Bondi

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GLORIA ESMERALDA RIVAS-GARCIA; No. 24-7226 EDWIN ERNESTO GONZALEZ-RIVAS, Agency Nos. A209-834-799 Petitioners, A209-834-800 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: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Gloria Esmeralda Rivas-Garcia and her son, Edwin Ernesto Gonzalez-Rivas

(collectively, “Petitioners”), natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review

of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying Petitioners’

* 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). motion to reconsider the BIA’s dismissal of an appeal from an order of an

Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Petitioners’ applications for asylum, withholding

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the denial of a motion for

reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1229 (9th Cir.

2020). The BIA abuses its discretion when the denial is “arbitrary, irrational, or

contrary to law.” Id. (quoting Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 2014)). We

deny the petition.

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

reconsideration because the motion was untimely. A motion to reconsider must be

filed within 30 days of the agency’s final administrative decision. 8 U.S.C. §

1229a(c)(6)(B). The BIA dismissed Petitioners’ appeal on March 20, 2024.

Petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration on April 22, 2024, three days after

the 30-day deadline. The BIA correctly determined that the motion was untimely,

and Petitioners have failed to raise any arguments related to that dispositive

determination.

2. To the extent that Petitioners seek to challenge the BIA’s underlying

1 Rivas-Garcia is the lead petitioner and Gonzalez-Rivas is a derivative beneficiary of Rivas-Garcia’s asylum application. Gonzalez-Rivas also filed separate applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on the same underlying factual contentions as in Rivas-Garcia’s applications.

2 24-7226 March 20, 2024 order dismissing Petitioners’ appeal of the IJ’s denial of their

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, this petition

for review is not timely as to that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (“The petition

for review must be filed not later than 30 days after the date of the final order of

removal.”); see also Riley v. Bondi, 606 U.S. 259, 274 (2025) (explaining that the

30-day filing deadline is not jurisdictional but mandatory). Accordingly, we decline

to consider Petitioners’ arguments concerning the merits of the BIA’s March 20,

2024 order.

PETITION DENIED.2

2 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. See Dkt. No. 3. The motion for stay of removal is otherwise denied. See id.

3 24-7226