Agapito Morales v. Blanche

── Agapito Morales v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TERESA AGAPITO MORALES; No. 24-7200 M. N. P. A., Agency Nos. A246-089-057 Petitioners, A246-089-058 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 Teresa Agapito Morales (“Morales”) and her minor child, M.N.P.A,1 natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of a decision by the * 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). 1 Morales and her minor child each filed their own applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT based on the same set of facts. Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing their appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision deeming Petitioners’ applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) abandoned for failure to submit biometrics as required by the governing regulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c). “An IJ’s decision to deem an asylum application abandoned is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Gonzalez-Veliz v. Garland, 996 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 2021). We also review the denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion. See Arizmendi- Medina v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1043, 1051 (9th Cir. 2023). We review de novo due process challenges to immigration proceedings. Id. at 1047. 1. The IJ did not abuse his discretion in finding Petitioners’ applications abandoned for failure to submit the required biometrics. The governing regulation provides that “[f]ailure to file necessary documentation and comply with the requirements to provide biometrics . . . within the time allowed by the immigration judge’s order, constitutes abandonment of the application and the immigration judge may enter an appropriate order dismissing the application unless the applicant demonstrates that such failure was the result of good cause.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.10 (similar). Here, the IJ informed Morales at three separate hearings, on February 9, April 13, and June 15, 2023, of the biometrics requirement and warned her that 2 24-7200 failure to complete her biometrics by the date of her final hearing on June 5, 2024, would result in a finding of abandonment absent good cause. On each occasion, the IJ asked Morales if she understood, and Morales responded that she did. When Morales appeared for her final hearing on June 5, 2024, she had been on notice of the biometrics requirement for sixteen months but still had not complied. She also failed to articulate what steps she had taken to begin the process. In such circumstances, the IJ did not abuse his discretion in deeming Petitioners’ applications abandoned. See Gonzalez-Veliz, 996 F.3d at 948 (finding no abuse of discretion where “the IJ twice warned [the petitioner] that if she did n