Rojas-Espinoza

Rojas-Espinoza v. Bondi

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 20, 202624-7536California5,724 words

Opinion

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 20 2026

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARICRUZ MARISOL ROJAS- No. 24-7536 ESPINOZA; ROBERT DAVID Agency Nos.

SALVADOR-GOMEZ; DAVID ANGEL A246-606-483

SALVADOR-ROJAS; KORINA A246-606-482

SALVADOR-ROJAS,

A246-606-484

A246-606-485

Petitioners,

v. ORDER

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

MURGUIA, Chief Judge: Dissent by Judge VanDyke

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that

this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(c)

and Circuit Rule 40-3. The order issued by the three-judge panel on October 24,

2025, which was previously stayed, is vacated.

FILED

FEB 20 2026

Rojas-Espinoza v. Bondi, No. 24-7536 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK VANDYKE, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the grant of rehearing en banc: U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

Imagine, if you are able, the wonderful Circuit of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.