N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
EM ILIA R OJAS-LAZAR O ; C LAR IVET SULLY HUAM AN-R OJAS,

Pe t i tione rs,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 21-180 Age n c y Nos. A212-992-316 A212-992-315
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d April 11, 2023 Se attle , W a shington ** B e fore : B YB EE a

n d FOR R EST, C i rc uit Judge s, a

nd SEEB O R G, *** Distric t Judge
.



# F IL ED APR 18 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

*** The Honora

ble R ic ha rd Se e borg, C hie f Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa t ion.Em ilia R oja s-La z aro an d he r m inor da ughte r pe tition for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (B IA) de nia l of the ir m o tion to re ope n. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252 a nd re vie w the B IA’ s de nia l of a m o tion to
re ope n for a buse of disc re t ion. He rnande z-Ortiz v . Garland

, 32 F.4th 794, 800 (9th C ir. 2022). W e g ra

nt the pe tition. The gove rnm e n t institute d re m ova l proc e e dings a ga inst thepe t itione rs in M ay 2017. R oja s-La z a

ro c onc e de d re m ova

bility and a pplie d for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, c anc e lla tion of re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture
. In M arc h 2019, theim

m igration judge(IJ) he l d a he aring in whic h R oja sLa z aro pre se nte d e vide nc e to support her a pplic a tions for im

m igration re lie f. A Spanish inte rpre te r wa s pre s e nt. At thec onc lusion of the he aring, theIJ indic a te d that he would not gra

nt R oja s-La z aro’ s a

pplic a tions a

nd a ske d whe the r R oja sLa z aro would like

pre -c o nc l usion volunta

ry de pa rture . To qua lify

for pre
c onc lusion volunta

ry de pa rture , a nonc i tiz e n m

ust withdra

w a ll a c t ive a

p plic a tions for im m igration re lie f a

nd wa ive he r right to a

ppe a l. 8 C .F.R
. § 1240.26(b)(1)(i)(B ), (D). Afte r a brie f re c e s s, c ounse l for R oja s-La z aro
re que s te d pre -c onc l usion volunta ry de pa rture on he r be ha lf. The IJ gra nte d

2volunta

ry de pa rture and issue d

an orde r noting tha

t R oja s-La z a

ro ha d withdra wn he r a pplic a tions for im

m igration re l ie f and wa ive d a ppe a l. R oja s-La z aro file d a

m otion to re ope n, c onte nding tha t she did not ha

ve the tim e or unde rsta

n d ing to a de quate ly

c o nside r the wa ive r of he r a ppe a l a nd withdra wa l of he r a

pplic a tions for re lie f. In c onjunc tion with her m o tion, R oja sLa z aro file d de c l ara tions from he rse lf a nd he r a ttorne y

e xpla ining tha

t R oja s La z aro did not understa

nd wha t wa s ha ppe n ing during he r he aring. Ac c ording to the s e de c la

rations, Ro

ja s-La z aro did not disc ove r she ha d forfe ite d he r a pplic a tions
and wa ive d he r a

ppe a l until she

spoke with he r a ttorne y through a n inte rpre te r a fe w da y s a fte r the he aring. The IJ de nie d the m otion to re ope n in a form orde r. R oja s-La z aro a

ppe a le d to the B IA, whic h a ffirm e d the IJ’ s de n ia l. To c o m port with due

proc e ss, a

wa ive r of a

ppe a l m ust be “ c o n side re d a

nd inte llige nt.” Unite d State s v . Pallare

s-Galan , 359 F.3d 1088, 1096 (9th C ir. 2004) (c iting Unite d State

s v . Le on-Paz , 340 F.3d 1003, 1005 (9th C ir. 2003)). This

“ inquiry foc use s on whe the r [the nonc itiz e n] pe rsonally m a de a ‘ c onside re d a

nd inte llige nt’ wa ive r of his a ppe a l.” Unite d State

s v . Ubaldo-Figue roa , 364 F.3d 1042, 1049 n.8 (9th C ir. 2004) (c ita tion omitte d)

. He re , the re c ord doe s not show that R oja s -La z aro pe rsona lly

gave up he r a

pplic a t ions or he r a

ppe a l. At no point in the h e aring did a

ny o ne a sk R oja s-La z aro whe the r she a g re e d to volunta ry
3de pa

rture , the withdra

wa l of he r a

pplic a tions for im

m i gra tion re lie f, or the wa ive r of he r a ppe a l. The gove rnm e n t a

rgue s tha t the wa i ve r wa s va lid be c a use R o ja s-La z aro wa s
re pre se nte d by

c ounse l who a c c e pte d volunta ry de p a rture on he r be h a l f. Howe ve r,
wa ive r by c ounse l “ will not support a finding tha

t the de ta ine e m a de a knowing
and c onside re d wa ive r of the right to a ppe a l.” Unite d

State s v . Proa-Tov ar , 945 F.2d 1450, 1453 (9th C ir. 1991), supe rse de d on othe r grounds by 975 F.2d 592 (9th C ir. 1992) (e n ba

nc ); se e also Ubaldo-Figue roa , 364 F.3d a

t 1049 & n.8. And
e ve n though the IJ e xpla ine d to c ounse l the c onse q ue nc e s of a c c e pting volunta ry de pa rture , the IJ fa ile d

to “ e x pre ssly and pe rsonally ” e xpla in those c onse que nc e s to R oja s-La z aro, a s due proc e s s re quire s. Ubaldo-Figue roa , 364 F.3d a t 1049 (e m pha sis a dde d ). B e c a use nothing in the

re c ord supports a

finding tha

t R o j a s-La z aro

“ pe rsonally ” wa i ve d he r a ppe a l, or tha

t suc h wa ive r wa s “ c onside re d a nd inte llige nt,” i d. a t 1049 n.8 (c ita tion omitte d ), the B IA a

buse d its disc re tion by de ny ing the m otion to re ope n. Se e also Bonilla v

. Ly nc h , 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th C ir. 2016) (“ The B IA a

buse s its disc re tion whe n its de c ision is a rbitra ry , irra tiona l,
or c ontra ry to la w.” (c ita t ion om itte d )). W e grant the m otion to re ope n a nd re m a n d to the IJ to rule on the m e rits of R oja s-La z aro’ s a pplic at ions.
4PE T IT IO N G RANT E D.

5