Samayoa Ivarra v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 10, 2026
• Docket: 25-2466
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 10 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JULIO CESAR SAMAYOA IVARRA, et No. 25-2466 al., Agency Nos. Petitioners, A249-093-198 A249-093-199 v.

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

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

Argued and Submitted March 2, 2026 San Francisco, California

Before: S.R. THOMAS and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and MORRIS, Chief District Judge.**

Julio Cesar Samayoa Ivarra, collectively with his minor son, Marcus, natives

and citizens of El Salvador, petitions for review on two grounds. Samayoa Ivarra

first seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Brian Morris, United States Chief District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. 1 his motion to reopen and declining to consider his late-filed brief. Samayoa Ivarra

also seeks review of the BIA’s decision summarily dismissing his appeal of an order

from an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which denied his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.

The Court does not need to recount the history of the case as the parties are

familiar with the factual and procedural background.

1. Samayoa Ivarra’s challenges to the BIA’s February 6, 2025, summary

dismissal of his appeal are not subject to judicial review by this Court as Samayoa

Ivarra never filed a petition for review of that decision. A petitioner must file a

petition for review within 30 days of the BIA’s decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1);

see Alonso-Juarez v. Garland, 80 F.4th 1039, 1046–47 (9th Cir. 2023) (explaining

that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) is a mandatory rule); see also Umana-Escobar v. Garland,

69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023) (declining to review issue that petitioner did not

raise to the BIA and therefore failed to exhaust). Further, our review is “limited to

the actual grounds relied upon by the BIA.” Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986

(9th Cir. 2010) (internal citation omitted). The BIA never affirmed the merits of the

IJ’s denial of relief and protection in its summary dismissal. We limit our review to

the BIA’s decision to deny Samayoa Ivarra’s motion to reopen.

2 2. The BIA has broad discretion to deny motions to reopen for failure to

file briefs. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c)(1); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th

Cir. 2010); Bent v. Garland, 115 F.4th 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2024). We review for abuse

of discretion. Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990 (citing Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988,

992 (9th Cir. 2008)). The BIA acted within its discretion by denying Samayoa

Ivarra’s motion to reopen to offer his untimely brief and his motion to consider that

late-filed brief. Samayoa Ivarra’s argument that the BIA failed to provide sufficient

explanation for its denial proves unavailing. The BIA adequately considered the

case's procedural history and rejected Samayoa Ivarra’s explanation of a fee dispute

with his counsel being the reason for his failure to file his brief. See Najmabadi, 597

F.3d at 990; see also Hernandez v. Garland, 52 F.4th 757, 768 (9th Cir. 2022)

(explaining that the BIA “need not engage in a lengthy discussion of every

contention raised by a petitioner,” as “all that is required is that it consider the issues

raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to

perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted” (citation modified)).

PETITION DENIED.

The motion for a stay of removal (Dkt. 2) is GRANTED to be dissolved upon

the issuance of the mandate.