Castro-Lopez v. Blanche

── Castro-Lopez v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSUE UZIEL CASTRO-LOPEZ; SURI No. 24-5290 SEDEMA ABRAJAN-SANCHEZ; ANGEL Agency Nos. JOSUE CASTRO-ABRAJAN; DULCE A246-268-680 SEANY HERNANDEZ-ABRAJAN, A246-268-681 A246-268-682 Petitioners, A246-268-683 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 23, 2026** Seattle, Washington Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and W. FLETCHER and KOH, Circuit Judges. Petitioners Josue Uziel Castro-Lopez, his spouse Suri Sedema Abrajan- Sanchez, and his two children are natives and citizens of Mexico. Petitioners seek * 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 of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) determination that Petitioners abandoned their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture due to their failure to submit biometrics as required by governing regulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. “[F]ailure to provide biometrics ‘within the time allowed by the [IJ]’s order, constitutes abandonment of the application and the [IJ] may enter an appropriate order dismissing the application unless the applicant demonstrates that such failure was the result of good cause.’” Gonzalez-Veliz v. Garland, 996 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 2021) (second and third alterations in original) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c)). Here, the BIA concluded it was appropriate for the IJ to deem Petitioners’ applications abandoned because Petitioners did not articulate good cause for failure to comply with the biometric requirements. We review the decision to deem an asylum application abandoned for abuse of discretion. Id. Petitioners argue that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to provide a reasoned explanation for why Petitioners had not established that their failure to provide biometrics was the result of good cause. “[T]he BIA does not have to write an exegesis on every contention. What is required is merely that it consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing 2 24-5290 court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation modified). “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.” Rodriguez v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotations and citations omitted). In its decision, the BIA explained why the IJ complied with the biometrics notice requirements and addressed Petitioners’ due process arguments. As to Petitioners’ good cause argument, the BIA acknowl