NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARINELA STEFAN; COSTINEL 

TURCAN; ROMEO-RONALDO 

STEFAN; FRANCESCA 

STEFAN; MARIA-LOREDANA 

DUMITRESCU,

Petitioners,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 23-1540

Agency Nos.

A205-706-226

A205-602-555

A205-602-558

A205-602-559

A205-706-227

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 2, 2024**

Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Petitioners, a family of Romanian citizens, petition pro se for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing their asylum, 

* 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).

FILED

JUL 5 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 23-1540

withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) claims as 

untimely. This Court reviews the BIA’s summary dismissal for untimeliness for 

abuse of discretion. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005). We 

have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

To be timely, an appeal must be “filed directly with the [BIA] within 30 

calendar days after the stating of an immigration judge's oral decision or the mailing 

. . . of an immigration judge's written decision.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38(b). And the 

BIA “may summarily dismiss any appeal” that “is untimely[.]” Id.

§ 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(G). Here, the IJ’s written decision was served on Petitioners on 

August 19, 2022. Petitioners filed their first Notice of Appeal to the BIA—which 

was rejected due to filing defects—on September 30, 2022. After multiple rejected 

notices, Petitioners succeeded in filing a Notice of Appeal on November 14, 2022. 

None of these notices fell within the 30-day window. So the BIA did not abuse its 

discretion in denying the appeal. 

Additionally, Petitioners failed to raise their ineffective assistance of counsel 

to the BIA, so “we deny this portion of the petition.” Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 

69 F.4th 544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023) (determining that failure to exhaust claim at BIA

deprives reviewing court of jurisdiction because the BIA did not have “an 

opportunity to pass on the issue” (simplified)). 

Further, Petitioners’ reliance on their attempt to file an appeal with the Fourth 
3 23-1540

Circuit is irrelevant. “The time limit for filing an appeal to the BIA is mandatory 

and jurisdictional.” Oh v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 611, 613 (9th Cir. 2005) (simplified). 

Petitioners failed to file a timely appeal with the BIA, despite receiving written notice 

after a decision by an Immigration Judge and the Fourth Circuit’s response to their 

improper appeal. So the BIA did not abuse its discretion by summarily dismissing 

the appeal. 

Lastly, to the extent Petitioners argue that the time for appeal should be 

equitably tolled, they have not shown that they faced the type of rare circumstances 

warranting an exception to the filing deadline. Oh, 406 F.3d at 613 (explaining how 

the BIA may, in “rare circumstances” excuse late filings) (simplified). On the 

contrary, that Petitioners filed four separately deficient appeals demonstrates no 

extraordinary circumstances. So Petitioners lack any valid excuse for not complying 

with the 30-day requirement.

PETITION DENIED.