Lopez Aguilar v. Blanche

── Lopez Aguilar v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 05, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 5 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE HUMBERTO LOPEZ AGUILAR, No. 25-994 Agency No. Petitioner, A213-372-579 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 30, 2026** Before: RAWLINSON, VANDYKE, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges. Jose Humberto Lopez Aguilar, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal. Lopez Aguilar argues that the BIA abused its discretion by failing “to consider its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings.” He maintains that “changed * 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). circumstances and Fifth Amendment due process considerations weigh in favor of reopening proceedings.” We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. Lopez Aguilar briefly argues that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to consider its authority to sua sponte reopen this matter. He cites only Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2018) to support this abuse-of-discretion argument. But in Bartolome, this court found error because an immigration judge affirmatively concluded that he lacked jurisdiction to reopen a matter. 903 F.3d at 815. That’s not what happened here. Here, the BIA dismissed Lopez Aguilar’s appeal because his appellate brief did not establish clear error by the immigration judge or explain why Lopez Aguilar had failed to notify the immigration court and the BIA of his changed address. At no point did the BIA find that it lacked jurisdiction. And while the BIA has jurisdiction to reopen this matter, it does not automatically err simply because it opted not to. As for Lopez Aguilar’s due process arguments, “[t]o prevail on a due process challenge to deportation proceedings, [a petitioner] must show error and substantial prejudice.” Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000). This court “will not simply presume prejudice”—the petitioner must establish that the due process error actually affected the outcome of proceedings. Id. Even assuming the government’s argument on due process runs afoul of this court’s 2 25-994 recent en banc decision United States v. Rivera-Valdes, 157 F.4th 978 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc), petition for cert. docketed, No. 25-972 (U.S. Feb. 13, 2026),1 that does not change the fact that Lopez Aguilar has not intelligibly explained to this court what error and substantial prejudice occurred. DENIED.2 1 The government maintains that Lopez Aguilar’s failure to update his address undercuts his due process arguments. But this court held in United States v. Rivera-Valdes that a petitioner’s failure to comply with a statutory requirement to update his address does not deprive him of his due process right to constitutionally sufficient notice. 157 F.4th at 991. 2 Lopez Aguilar’s motion to stay removal is denied. 3 25-994