NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 3 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA CRISTINA CASTROS- No. 20-70049 RENDEROS and J.J.H.C.,

BIA A208-546-280

Petitioners,

v.

MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

Respondent.

Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 3, 2023** San Francisco, California

Before: McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,*** District Judge.

* 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). *** The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.

1 Petitioner Maria Castro-Renderos,1 a native and citizen of El Salvador,

failed to appear at her removal hearing and was ordered removed in absentia. She

filed a motion to reopen, arguing she did not receive sufficient notice and was

unaware of the removal hearing. She now petitions for review of the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal of an Immigration

Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her motion to reopen the in absentia order of removal.

Castro-Renderos also moves to supplement the certified administrative record with

two Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) I-830E forms (“Supplemental

Documents”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

This court’s review is generally limited to the information in the

administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en

banc). “We may review out-of-record evidence only where (1) the [BIA] considers

the evidence; or (2) the [BIA] abuses its discretion by failing to consider such

evidence upon the motion of an applicant.” Id. at 964. The Board did neither—

accordingly, we may not consider the Supplemental Documents in reviewing

Castro-Renderos’ petition. However, as agency records, it appears the

Supplemental Documents should have been included in the certified administrative

record in the first instance. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(C). Further, they likely bear on

1 “Castro-Renderos” refers to both the lead petitioner and her minor son as rider- derivative.

2 Castro-Renderos’ notice claim, and the failure to include that information in the

record does not seem attributable to her. Because we may not review the

Supplemental Documents, but the record appears incomplete without them, we

remand to the BIA with directions to remand to the IJ for consideration of whether

to include the Supplemental Documents into the record in the first instance and

whether to reopen accordingly. In light of this disposition, we do not reach the

merits of Castro-Renderos’ petition to reopen. Castro-Renderos’ motion to

supplement the record on appeal (Dkt. 13) is DENIED.

REMANDED. Each party shall pay its costs on appeal.

3