Terrones Alonso v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 25, 2025
• Docket: 24-6181
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 25 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MA TRINIDAD TERRONES ALONSO, No. 24-6181 Agency No. Petitioner, A213-053-018 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted July 15, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Ma Trinidad Terrones Alonso, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily

dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision denying her

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

* 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). review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s summary dismissal of an appeal. Nolasco-

Amaya v. Garland, 14 F.4th 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2021). We deny the petition for

review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing Terrones

Alonso’s appeal where the notice of appeal did not identify specific challenges to

the IJ’s decision, and where she did not file a separate compliant written brief

despite stating that she would. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A), (E); see also

Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary dismissal

appropriate where notice of appeal lacked sufficient specificity and no separate

written brief was filed). Terrones Alonso’s contention that the BIA did not provide

an adequately reasoned opinion is unsupported by the record.

We do not address Terrones Alonso’s contentions as to the merits of her

claims because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See Santiago-

Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision

of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted)).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 24-6181