Ruiz-Acosta v. Blanche

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 26, 2026
• Docket: 26-1043
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HERMAN GABRIEL RUIZ-ACOSTA; No. 25-3456 JEIMMY VIVIANA ROJAS-MILLAN; S. E. R.-R., Agency Nos. A220-353-045 Petitioners, A220-486-548 A220-486-549 v.

TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney MEMORANDUM* General,

Respondent.

HERMAN GABRIEL RUIZ-ACOSTA; No. 26-1043 JEIMMY VIVIANA ROJAS-MILLAN; S. E. R.-R., Agency Nos. A220-353-045 Petitioners, A220-486-548 A220-486-549 v.

TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

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

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Submitted May 22, 2026** Pasadena, California

Before: N.R. SMITH, BENNETT, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.

Herman Gabriel Ruiz-Acosta, Jeimmy Viviana Rojas-Millan, and S. E. R.-R.

(“Petitioners”) seek review of the decisions of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and the

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) to pretermit their applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “Where, as here, the BIA issues a

Burbano affirmance, we review the IJ’s decision as if it were the decision of the

BIA.” Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We grant the petition.

Because the BIA here affirmed the IJ decision citing Burbano, “all issues

presented before the IJ are deemed to have been” exhausted. Arreguin-Moreno v.

Mukasey, 511 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d

1037, 1041 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). “In the administrative proceedings,” the IJ

considered the “general argument” that Petitioners had complied with the biometrics

order even though they did not complete biometrics before their merits hearing.

Bare v. Barr, 975 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 2020). The “more specific” arguments

Petitioners raise before us related to that issue have therefore been exhausted. Id.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 25-3456 The IJ failed to provide Petitioners with adequate notice of their obligations

to complete biometrics. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c), (d). The IJ never ordered

Petitioners to complete biometrics by a certain date; instead, the IJ only required

Petitioners to file “proof that [they] are actively pursuing the biometrics

compliance”—proof that the IJ later acknowledged Petitioners “submitted.” Nor did

the IJ ever inform Petitioners directly of their biometrics obligations; instead, the IJ

communicated all directions through counsel without an interpreter. The IJ therefore

abused its discretion by pretermitting Petitioners’ applications. See Karapetyan v.

Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1118, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008) (IJ abused its discretion by

pretermitting an application without ever specifying that “fingerprints had to be

submitted before the beginning of the merits hearing”), superseded by statute on

other grounds as stated in Owino v. Holder, 575 F.3d 956, 958 (9th Cir. 2009) (per

curiam); Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289, 1291, 1293–94 (9th Cir. 2008) (IJ abused

its discretion by pretermitting an application without confirming that the non-

English speaking applicant “understood” the biometric instructions). Gonzalez-

Veliz v. Garland does not govern here because, unlike in Gonzalez-Veliz, Petitioners

did not “receive[] adequate notice” of their biometrics obligations. 996 F.3d 942,

949 (9th Cir. 2021).

PETITION GRANTED.1

1 We grant the motion to stay removal, Dkt. 8, pending issuance of the mandate.

3 25-3456