Contreras-Lopez v. Blanche

── Contreras-Lopez v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CIPRIANO CONTRERAS-LOPEZ, No. 25-544 Agency No. Petitioner, A216-277-339 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 21, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: N.R. SMITH, BENNETT, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges. Cipriano Contreras Lopez (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) refusal to accept a motion as untimely, and * 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). declining to reopen proceedings sua sponte. We have jurisdiction as to the first issue under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition as to that issue. We have no jurisdiction as to the second issue, and so we dismiss the petition in part. Petitioner’s Notice to Appear was issued while he was in ICE custody, so his case was originally set on the docket for detained aliens at the Immigration Court in Otay Mesa, California. On October 29, 2018, before his first calendar hearing, Petitioner was released on bond. Two days later, at the first calendar hearing, Petitioner stated that he intended to file a written motion objecting to the government’s Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien. Petitioner also moved for a change of venue because he was no longer detained. The Otay Mesa IJ granted the motion and transferred venue to the Immigration Court in San Diego, and set a filing deadline requiring all written motions and objection to be filed no later than November 13, 2018. The IJ specified that she was “setting a filing deadline” even though the venue had been changed and even though the objection would “have to be filed at the new court.” Petitioner’s attorney prepared and then signed amotion to terminate and/or suppress evidence on the November 13 deadline, and mailed it to the court that same day. The motion was received by and filed with the San Diego Immigration Court on November 15, 2018, two days past the filing deadline. At Petitioner’s first hearing before the San Diego IJ, the IJ refused to accept the motion because it was 2 25-544 late. In response, Petitioner’s lawyer asked the IJ when the motion was filed, and when the IJ stated it was filed on November 15, Petitioner’s lawyer replied, “[o]kay, it might have been for some reason mailed that date [likely meaning November 13]. Okay, understood.” Petitioner’s lawyer did not object, either orally or in writing, to the IJ’s refusal to accept the motion. At the same hearing, Petitioner indicated to the San Diego IJ that he intended to file an application for cancellation of removal. The IJ set a deadline of May 31, 2019. But by February 14, 2020, Petitioner had not filed the application. The IJ therefore issued an order of removal on that date. Petitioner appealed the order of removal to the BIA. He challenged the IJ’s refusal to accept his motion to terminate and/or suppress as un