Vega Lopez v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 10, 2026
• Docket: 24-6380
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 10 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANDRA BANESSA VEGA LOPEZ; No. 24-6380 BRAYAN DANILO VEGA-LOPEZ; Agency Nos. MARLEN YOLANI MELGAR-VEGA, A245-317-263 A245-317-267 Petitioners, A245-317-269 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted February 2, 2026** Portland, Oregon

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

Sandra Vega Lopez and her two minor children petition for review of a

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal from

an order of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying their motion to reopen proceedings

* 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). that resulted in an in absentia order of removal. Because the parties are familiar

with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8

U.S.C. § 1252 and review the denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion.

Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir. 2007). We grant the petition

and remand.

An in absentia order of removal “may be rescinded . . . upon a motion to

reopen . . . if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was because of

exceptional circumstances.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). “Because ‘exceptional

circumstances’ are by definition unique, we look to the particularized facts and the

totality of the circumstances of each case.” V. Singh v. Garland, 117 F.4th 1145,

1150 (9th Cir. 2024) (citation modified). The BIA abuses its discretion when it

fails “to adequately address all totality of the circumstances factors” relevant to a

petitioner’s claim. Id.

We conclude that, contrary to Vega Lopez’s contention, the agency

adequately addressed her postpartum fatigue and the fact that she speaks only

Spanish. Moreover, the agency reasonably found that Vega Lopez failed to

provide evidence supporting her assertion that postpartum fatigue constitutes an

exceptional circumstance.

The agency erred, however, by failing to consider whether Vega Lopez

lacked a motive to avoid her hearing. We have recognized that a petitioner’s

2 24-6380 motive to avoid immigration proceedings may be a relevant factor in the totality of

the circumstances analysis. See Chete Juarez v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 944, 948 (9th

Cir. 2004); R. Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, Vega

Lopez expressly argued in her motion to reopen and BIA brief that she had no

reason to avoid her immigration hearing and made every effort to attend her

hearing. Before the BIA, she further argued that she had a strong case for asylum

and other relief.1 Because Vega Lopez urged the agency to consider whether she

had a motive to avoid her hearing, the BIA abused its discretion by failing to

address this factor. See V. Singh, 117 F.4th at 1150.

We decline Vega Lopez’s invitation to conduct our own totality of the

circumstances analysis. We are not “generally empowered to conduct a de novo

inquiry into the matter being reviewed and to reach [our] own conclusions based

on such an inquiry.” INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) (per curiam)

(citation modified). Instead, where the agency’s decision “cannot be sustained

upon its reasoning, [the] case must be remanded.” Kalulu v. Bondi, 128 F.4th

1009, 1024 (9th Cir. 2024) (citation modified).2

1 We reject the government’s contention that Vega Lopez failed to exhaust this argument. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). Vega Lopez’s discussion of this factor in her brief to the BIA was sufficient to put the BIA “on notice so that it had an opportunity to pass on the issue.” Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation modified). 2 Vega Lopez also argues that the agency failed to consider unconscionable results

3 24-6380 PETITION GRANTED and REMANDED.

and prejudice to her minor children and erroneously imposed a stricter legal standard than is required. Vega Lopez failed to exhaust these arguments. See Umana-Escobar, 69 F.4th at 550.

4 24-6380