Rodriguez-Rojas v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 24, 2026
• Docket: 21-191
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 24 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JULIO CESAR RODRIGUEZ-ROJAS, No. 21-191 Agency No. Petitioner, A209-809-499 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted March 19, 2026** Tucson, Arizona

Before: HAWKINS, HURWITZ, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Julio Rodriguez-Rojas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing an appeal from

an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granting voluntary departure. We have

* 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.

“A decision will be reversed on due process grounds if (1) the proceeding was

so fundamentally unfair that the [noncitizen] was prevented from reasonably

presenting his case, and (2) the [noncitizen] demonstrates prejudice, which means

that the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged violation.”

Zia v. Garland, 112 F.4th 1194, 1203 (9th Cir. 2024) (citation modified). Rodriguez-

Rojas claims he was denied due process when the IJ denied a continuance he sought

to obtain new counsel and pursue a waiver of inadmissibility based on his wife’s I-

130 petition. He also argues the IJ denied him due process by failing to provide a

translator at the merits hearing, during which the IJ provided the voluntary departure

advisals. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(3)(i)– (iii).

We review due process challenges de novo, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526

F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008), and find no error. Rodriguez-Rojas waived all

forms of relief other than voluntary departure at a prior hearing at which an

interpreter was present, and was in any event ineligible for adjustment of status, even

with a waiver of inadmissibility. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), 1255(a).

“[B]ecause nothing in the record shows that he was eligible for adjustment of status

or any other relief” beyond voluntary departure, which the IJ granted, Rodriguez-

Rojas has not demonstrated prejudice. Sandoval-Luna, 526 F.3d at 1247; see also

United States v. Ramos, 623 F.3d 672, 684 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding no prejudice

2 21-191 despite lack of proper translation because the petitioner was statutorily ineligible for

relief).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.1

1 The stay of removal, Dkt. 4, will be vacated on issuance of the mandate.

3 21-191