NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALICIA LUNA FLORES; JUAN No. 20-71833

ALBERTO BAQUERA SANTOYO;

M.S.B.L., a Juvenile Female, Agency Nos. A205-248-974

A205-248-975

Petitioners, A215-820-226

v.

MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted November 19, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW, BERZON, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Alicia Luna Flores, Juan Alberto Baquera Santoyo, and their minor

daughter, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a decision by the

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing their appeal from an

* 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). Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their motion for a continuance and

deeming their applications for immigration relief abandoned. We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). “Where the BIA conducts its own review of the

evidence and law, rather than adopting the IJ’s decision, our review is limited to

the BIA’s decision, except to the extent the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.”

Guerra v. Barr, 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). “We review

factual findings for substantial evidence and legal questions de novo.” Id. We

review the decision to deem an application for immigration relief as abandoned or

waived for abuse of discretion. Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir.

2013). “Absent a showing of clear abuse, we typically do not disturb an IJ’s

discretionary decision not to continue a hearing.” Usubakunov v. Garland, 16 F.4th

1299, 1304 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted).

1. The petitioners did not in their opening brief in this court challenge

the holding that their applications were abandoned, and so have forfeited that

challenge. See Hernandez v. Garland, 47 F.4th 908, 916 (9th Cir. 2022).

In any event, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in holding that the

petitioners abandoned their applications for immigration relief by failing to submit

any applications before the IJ’s deadline. A noncitizen’s failure to meet the

timelines set by an IJ will result in waiver of his or her application. 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.31(h). Here, in a hearing attended by the petitioners’ counsel, the IJ

2 imposed a November 6, 2019, deadline for the petitioners to file applications for

immigration relief. The petitioners did not file any applications by the deadline or

request an extension, so the IJ denied the petitioners’ claims for asylum, statutory

withholding of removal, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against

Torture (“CAT”), concluding that the applications were abandoned. The BIA

dismissed the petitioners’ appeal of the IJ’s removal order on the same basis. In so

doing, the BIA did not abuse its discretion. Taggar, 736 F.3d at 889–90.

2. The BIA did not ignore the petitioners’ interlocutory appeal of the IJ’s

refusal to consolidate the petitioners’ case with those of their relatives or their

accompanying motion to stay proceedings. The BIA “does not ordinarily entertain

interlocutory appeals.” Matter of K-, 20 I. & N. Dec. 418, 419 (1991). Here, the

BIA formally acknowledged receipt of the petitioners’ interlocutory appeal on

December 10, 2019, and then denied the interlocutory appeal as moot on January

15, 2020, noting the immigration judge’s January 9 removal order. So the BIA did

not ignore the appeal and motion but ruled on them appropriately, given the

petitioners’ failure to apply for immigration relief.

3. Petitioners have not demonstrated any violation of their due process

rights. They cannot show that the IJ’s denial of their motion to consolidate and

alternative request for a continuance “was so fundamentally unfair” that the

petitioners were “prevented from reasonably presenting [their] case.” Gutierrez v.

3 Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation modified).

The petitioners allege that a family member1 was the target of a politically

motivated assassination attempt in the petitioners’ hometown and maintain that his

testimony was “uniquely significant to the outcome” of their immigration case. 2

The petitioners’ motion to consolidate and alternative request for a continuance,

which the IJ denied and the BIA dismissed as moot on appeal, sought to allow the

family member to testify in their case. The petitioners did not, however, submit

any applications for immigration relief. So the relative’s testimony could not have

influenced the outcome of the petitioners’ case, as there were no proceedings in

which his testimony would have been relevant. As the petitioners have not

demonstrated prejudice, they suffered no due process violation. See Grigoryan v.

Barr, 959 F.3d 1233, 1240 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that a noncitizen “must show

error and substantial prejudice” to prevail on a due process challenge to

deportation proceedings) (citation omitted).

1 The relative traveled to the United States with the petitioners and was removed to Mexico in June 2019. See Luna-Flores v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 859 F. App’x 869, 871 (11th Cir. 2021). 2 Petitioners have sufficiently exhausted their administrative remedies for claims related to the violation of DHS detainee transfer policies. Petitioners’ interlocutory appeal brief “provided the BIA with adequate opportunity to correct any errors occurring in the proceedings below.” Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1084 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation modified).

4

PETITION DENIED.3

3 Petitioners’ Motion to Take Judicial Notice is denied as moot. The documents identified by the petitioners in the motion, including the petitioners’ motion to consolidate and interlocutory appeal brief, were included in an updated administrative record filed by the government in this court.

5