Roman-Orsorio v. Blanche

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 5, 2026
• Docket: 25-2110
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 5 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANGELINA ROMAN-ORSORIO; No. 25-2110 MARLON CAHUEC-RODRIGUEZ; A. C.- Agency Nos. R., A241-772-487 A241-772-486 Petitioners, A241-772-485 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted April 30, 2026**

Before: RAWLINSON, MENDOZA, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Petitioners Angelina Roman-Orsorio, her husband, and their minor son are

natives and citizens of Guatemala. They petition for review of a decision by the

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily dismissing petitioners’ appeal of

* 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). an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of

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

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA summarily dismissed petitioners’ appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R.

§§ 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A), (E) for (1) failure to meaningfully apprise the BIA of the

specific reasons underlying petitioners’ challenge to the IJ’s decision, and (2) failure

to file a brief or statement in support of their appeal within the time set for filing,

despite indicating they would do so.

On appeal, petitioners challenge the IJ’s underlying denial of asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under CAT. But the BIA did not rely on the

IJ’s decision in its dismissal of petitioners’ appeal. Because our review is limited to

the grounds relied upon by the BIA, we cannot reach the merits of the IJ’s decision.1

Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In reviewing the decision

of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”).

Additionally, petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s summary dismissal of

their appeal for failure to state specific reasons or file a brief, which is the basis for

the BIA’s ruling. Petitioners thus waived any arguments challenging the BIA’s

1 Indeed, the BIA likely did not address the merits of the IJ’s decision because petitioners failed to challenge the IJ’s decision before the BIA.

2 25-2110 summary dismissal.2 Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th Cir.

2013); Hernandez v. Garland, 47 F.4th 908, 916 (9th Cir. 2022) (stating issues not

“specifically and distinctly” argued in opening brief may be deemed forfeited

(quoting Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2020))).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.3

2 Even if petitioners preserved their challenge, the BIA did not abuse its discretion by summarily dismissing petitioners’ appeal. See Nolasco-Amaya v. Garland, 14 F.4th 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating that review of the BIA’s summary dismissal of an appeal is for abuse of discretion). Petitioners failed to state with sufficient specificity the ground for appeal either in a separate brief or on the counseled Notice of Appeal itself. See Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 819– 20 (9th Cir. 2003). 3 The temporary stay of removal shall remain in place until the mandate issues. The motion for a stay of removal, Dkt. No. 2, is otherwise denied.

3 25-2110