NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Y OUSELINE MILIS

,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND

, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 21

- 206

Agency No. A209

- 141

- 524

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 9, 2023 ** Pasadena, California

Before: GILMAN *** , FORREST, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges

.

Youseline Milis , a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of her appeal from an immigration

judge’s (IJ) decision to deem abandoned her application s for asylum,

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convent ion Against Torture. We

* 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).

*** The Honorable Ronald L ee Gilman

, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAR 13 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 206

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252

. Because the Board’s opinion did not

expressly adopt any part of the IJ’s decision, we limit our review to the Board’s

opinion. Velasquez

- Gaspar v. Barr , 976 F.3d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). W e

review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for

substantial evidence

, Bringas

- Rodriguez v. Sessions , 850 F.3d 1051,

1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). We deny the petition for review.

The Board agreed with the IJ’s determination that Milis had abandoned

her applications because she fail ed to comply with the applicable biometrics

requirement without good cause

. 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c)

– (d) (2023) ( failure to

com ply with biom etrics requirement constitutes abandon ment of a pplica tion ;

abandonment may be excused by good cause )

. Milis does not dispute that she

was informed of the biometrics requirement and of the consequences for fai ling

to abide by it

. But she conte nds that her failure to satisfy the requirement was

due to er rors on the part of the United States Citizenship and Immigration

Services (USCIS). Spe cifically, Milis claims that she timely sent USCIS the

required biometrics registration but that USCIS (i) did not send her a notice

indicating a date and time for completing the biometrics requirement, and

(ii) did not inform her that the requirement was unmet in her case.

This argument is foreclosed by our precedent

. We have held that the

burden of comply ing with the bio metrics requi rement is on the applicant an d

that the applicant must “follow up” i f the “biom etrics submission receipt

notice[] . . . is not received.” Gonzales

- Veliz v. Garland , 996 F.3d 942, 948

, 9503 21

- 206

(9th Cir. 2021). T he Board determined that Milis failed to submit do cumentary

evidence substantiating her claim that she sent the biometrics registration to

USCIS

. Milis does not dispute this holding

. Substantial evidence , moreover,

supports the Board’s holding that Milis did not exercise due diligence in seeking

to complete the biometrics requirement in a timely manner. Despite not

receiving any notice from USCIS that the biometrics registration had reached it

,

Milis ’s attorney did not follow up with the agency

, even thou gh her attorney

had over six months to do so before the time of the final hearing

. Given the

absence of good cause excusing Milis’ s failure to comply with the biometrics

requirement, the Board did not err in dismissing Milis’ s appeal. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.4 7(c)

– (d) (2023) ; Gonzales

- Veliz, 996 F.3d at 948.

PETITION DENIED.