Pedro Antonio v. Blanche

── Pedro Antonio v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 27, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAMONA PEDRO ANTONIO, No. 25-2621 Agency No. A220-602-585 Petitioner-Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent-Appellee. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 19, 2026 Pasadena, California Before: BENNETT, KOH, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges. Ramona Pedro Antonio, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) April 15, 2025 order denying her motion to reopen and reissue the BIA’s prior June 12, 2024 decision. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition. Pedro Antonio presented her application for asylum, withholding of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture to an Immigration Judge in 2022. The Immigration Judge denied the applications, and she appealed to the BIA. The BIA dismissed the appeal, and Pedro Antonio did not file a petition for review of that dismissal. Instead, in January 2025, she filed a motion to reopen before the BIA. The BIA denied that motion on April 15, 2025, and Pedro Antonio petitioned for review of that denial. Pedro Antonio first frames the issue as whether the Immigration Judge violated her due process rights by refusing to reopen proceedings based on changed country conditions. However, the only order before us is the BIA’s April 15, 2025 decision denying reopening and reissuance. Because Pedro Antonio did not timely petition for review of the BIA’s underlying June 12, 2024 merits decision that dismissed Pedro Antonio’s appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), we decline to review the substance of that earlier June 12, 2024 decision. See Stone v. I.N.S., 514 U.S. 386, 405 (1995), abrogated on different grounds by Riley v. Bondi, 606 U.S. 259 (2025). Construed as a challenge to the BIA’s January 31, 2025 decision, Pedro Antonio’s argument that the BIA violated her due process rights by refusing to reopen proceedings based on changed country conditions fails because she forfeited any meaningful challenge to the BIA’s decision. Her opening brief 2 contains only a brief discussion of the changed country conditions exception and does not meaningfully address the BIA’s reasoning. In particular, the opening brief identifies no record evidence showing that conditions in Guatemala materially changed after the September 15, 2022 merits hearing before the Immigration Judge. Pedro Antonio’s opening brief on appeal also does not address the BIA’s conclusions that Pedro Antonio failed to comply with Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (B.I.A. 1988), that reissuance was unwarranted, or that her underlying claims had already been deemed waived. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8), arguments not meaningfully developed in an opening brief are forfeited. See Iraheta-Martinez v. Garland, 12 F.4th 942, 959 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting that “by failing to develop the argument in his opening brief,” the petitioner “forfeited it”). Here, because Pedro Antonio’s briefing fails to meaningfull