PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

GUSTAVO RAMIREZ-CORIA,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., 

United States Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 13-9604

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

Submitted on the briefs:*

Gustavo Ramirez-Coria, Pro Se.

Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Jennifer Williams, 

Senior Litigation Counsel, Colette J. Winston, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration 

Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Before MATHESON, ANDERSON, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

 * After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 1, 2014

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court
- 2 -

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.

Gustavo Ramirez-Coria, a citizen of Mexico, sought cancellation of removal. 

The Immigration Judge (IJ) concluded that Ramirez-Coria had abandoned his 

application and not shown good cause for failing to provide required biometric 

information for over two years. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, 

and Ramirez-Coria now petitions this court for review. We deny his petition.

I. BACKGROUND

Ramirez-Coria illegally entered the United States in 1995. He was placed in 

removal proceedings in April 2009, and conceded removability at his initial hearing. 

At a second hearing in May 2009, Ramirez-Coria requested a continuance in order to 

complete his application for cancellation of removal (Form EOIR-42B), under 

8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The IJ rescheduled the hearing for June 2009, at which 

Ramirez-Coria submitted his EOIR-42B application. His application was incomplete, 

however, because he had failed to follow the instructions on the Form requiring him 

to provide biometric information, including his fingerprints, as required by 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.47. 

Applicants for cancellation of removal are required to submit to an identity, 

law enforcement, or security investigation, which includes the requirement of 

providing biometrics. Id. § 1003.47(b)(5), (d). To ensure that the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) has completed this investigation before adjudication of the 

application, applicants are required to follow procedures described in § 1003.47 and 
- 3 -

the instructions on the applicable application form. Id. § 1003.47(a), (c). The 

instructions on Form EOIR-42B directed Ramirez-Coria to (1) attend an appointment 

with a nearby immigration Application Support Center (ASC) to provide biometric 

information; (2) obtain a biometrics confirmation notice from the ASC and bring it to 

his hearing as evidence he had provided his biometrics; and (3) file the completed 

Form EOIR-42B application and all supporting documentation with the Immigration 

Court within the time period directed by the IJ. Aplt. App. at 202.

Because Ramirez-Coria had not included the biometric information with his 

application, the IJ rescheduled his hearing to October 2010, eighteen months away. 

The IJ informed Ramirez-Coria:

Sir, you have to get your fingerprints done and this document tells you 

how you need to do it. Your attorney knows about it but at the end of 

the day, it’s your obligation to make sure that the instructions are 

followed. If you fail to do that, your application could be denied simply 

because you haven’t followed the instructions on the form. So make 

sure you take care of that. And that biometric form is marked as 

Exhibit 4.

Id. at 113-14.

The IJ later rescheduled the hearing to January 2012, but shortly before the 

hearing Ramirez-Coria’s counsel moved to withdraw, stating his client had “lost 

interest in his own case.” Id. at 267. New counsel entered an appearance, and the 

hearing was rescheduled for March 2, 2012. 

Ramirez-Coria submitted his supporting documentation for the application two 

days before the March hearing, but without the biometric information. At the 
- 4 -

hearing, counsel told the IJ that Ramirez-Coria had gone to an ASC the day before 

and provided his fingerprints. Officials at ASC would not take Ramirez-Coria’s 

fingerprints without any identification or birth certificate, and counsel stated that 

Ramirez-Coria had lacked any form of identification for the past three years until the 

day before the hearing. The government stated that DHS had no record that 

Ramirez-Coria had provided his fingerprints. Counsel did not dispute the IJ’s 

observation that the DHS obviously had not had time to complete its required 

investigation. The IJ also noted that all of Ramirez-Coria’s supporting 

documentation for the application was untimely because the Immigration Court 

Practice Manual requires all filings to be submitted at least fifteen days in advance of 

the hearing. Counsel stated her office had been diligent in contacting Ramirez-Coria, 

but he had been working a lot and it had been difficult to get the documentation. 

The IJ determined that Ramirez-Coria’s application for cancellation of 

removal should be deemed abandoned and concluded that he had not shown good 

cause for failing to complete the biometric requirement in over two years, nor had his 

counsel ever informed the IJ that he was having any problem obtaining his 

fingerprints. The IJ dismissed his application, but granted Ramirez-Coria voluntary 

departure. Ramirez-Coria appealed to the BIA, which concluded the IJ properly 

deemed his cancellation-of-removal application abandoned, and it dismissed his 

appeal.
- 5 -

II. DISCUSSION

The applicable regulation states that an applicant for cancellation of removal 

“shall make arrangements” to provide the required biometric information “before or 

as soon as practicable after the filing of the application for relief in the immigration 

proceedings.” § 1003.47(d). Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(b)(5), (c) & (d), failure to 

provide this biometric information and to file the necessary documentation to support 

a cancellation-of-removal application in conformity with the applicable regulations 

and instructions constitutes abandonment of the application. In such cases, the IJ 

may dismiss the application unless the applicant demonstrates that his failure to file 

the necessary documents was the result of good cause. Id. § 1003.47(c).1

 An 

immigration judge is prohibited from granting an adjustment application where the 

security background checks based on an applicant’s fingerprinting and biometric 

information have not been completed. Id. § 1003.47(g).

In this case it is the BIA’s order that we review. See Uanreroro v. Gonzales, 

443 F.3d 1197, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006). “However, when seeking to understand the 

 1 Section 1003.47(c) provides in part:

Failure to file necessary documentation and comply with the 

requirements to provide biometrics and other biographical information 

in conformity with the applicable regulations, the instructions to the 

applications, the biometric notice, and instructions provided by DHS, 

within the time allowed by the immigration judge’s order, constitutes 

abandonment of the application and the immigration judge may enter an 

appropriate order dismissing the application unless the applicant 

demonstrates that such failure was the result of good cause.
- 6 -

grounds provided by the BIA, we are not precluded from consulting the IJ’s more 

complete explanation of those same grounds.” Id. We review the BIA’s legal 

determinations de novo and its “findings of fact under the substantial evidence 

standard.” Elzour v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 1143, 1150 (10th Cir. 2004). Our circuit has 

not had occasion to determine the appropriate standard of review to apply to the 

determination to dismiss an application as abandoned without good cause under 

§ 1003.47(c). We apply an abuse-of-discretion standard to other regulations 

giving the IJ discretion to determine if an applicant has shown “good cause.” 

See Jimenez-Guzman v. Holder, 642 F.3d 1294, 1297 (10th Cir. 2011) (applying 

abuse-of-discretion standard to IJ’s decision to grant a motion for continuance under 

8 C.F.R. § 1003.29, which states that the IJ “may grant a motion for continuance for 

good cause shown”); Ballesteros v. Ashcroft, 452 F.3d 1153, 1160 (10th Cir. 2006)

(describing as discretionary an IJ’s decision to transfer a removal proceeding under 

8 C.F.R. § 1003.20(b) for “good cause”). Section 1003.47(c) states that “the 

immigration judge may enter an appropriate order dismissing the application” for 

failure to provide the required biometric information. § 1003.47(c) (emphasis 

added). Based on this discretionary language, we review the determination to 

dismiss Ramirez-Coria’s application as abandoned for an abuse of discretion. 

See Gomez-Medina v. Holder, 687 F.3d 33, 38 (1st Cir. 2012) (citing § 1003.47(c)’s 

discretionary language as basis for reviewing abandonment determination for abuse 

of discretion). The BIA “abuses its discretion when its decision provides no rational 
- 7 -

explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any 

reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements.” Infanzon v. 

Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1359, 1362 (10th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In his petition for review, Ramirez-Coria first argues he complied with 

§ 1003.47. He asserts that the IJ and the government both acknowledged he had 

satisfied the biometrics requirement one day before the hearing. But the record does 

not support these assertions. To the contrary, the BIA found that Ramirez-Coria 

“never provided proof to the [IJ] that his biometrics had been completed.” Aplt. 

App. at 9 n.1. The BIA noted the exhibit dated March 1, 2012, submitted to the IJ by 

Ramirez-Coria, did not demonstrate that he had provided his fingerprints that day, 

id., but rather was a referral notice directing him to provide his fingerprints 30 to 90 

days before his hearing; id. at 150. The record supports the BIA’s finding that 

Ramirez-Coria never provided the requisite proof that he completed the biometric 

process. Moreover, it is undisputed that no biometric data was available in time for 

the hearing.

Ramirez-Coria also argues that the IJ and the DHS failed to notify or instruct 

him of the need to provide his biometric information. The record flatly contradicts 

this claim. The instructions on Form EOIR-42B directed Ramirez-Coria to bring 

proof he had completed the biometric process to his hearing. Id. at 202. The IJ 

expressly notified Ramirez-Coria that it was his obligation to provide his biometric 

information, directed him to the instructions on Form EOIR-42B, and warned him 
- 8 -

that failure to provide biometrics would result in dismissal of his application. 

Id. at 113-14.

Finally, Ramirez-Coria argues the IJ abused its discretion in deeming his 

application abandoned and dismissing it, claiming he showed good cause for not 

complying with the biometric requirement. He states he made numerous attempts to 

provide his fingerprints, but he was turned away each time because he lost his 

Mexican birth certificate and ASC would not begin the biometric process until he 

could provide it. He states he was unable to persuade his family in Mexico to help 

him obtain a copy of his certificate.

The BIA concluded, as had the IJ, that these reasons failed to demonstrate 

good cause for failing to complete the biometric requirement. The BIA reasoned that 

Ramirez-Coria had over 21⁄2 years between his first hearing and the March 2012 

hearing, so his failure to obtain a copy of his lost birth certificate in that amount of 

time did not constitute good cause for failing to complete the biometric requirement. 

Further, the BIA noted that prior to the March hearing, his counsel had never 

indicated to the IJ that Ramirez-Coria needed additional time to provide his 

biometrics.

We conclude that the BIA did not abuse its discretion in affirming the IJ’s

dismissal of Ramirez-Coria’s application for cancellation of removal. The IJ acted 

well within his authority under § 1003.47(c) to determine that Ramirez-Coria’s 

failure to complete with the biometric requirement and to provide all the supporting 
- 9 -

documentation to complete his cancellation-of-removal application after more than 

two years’ time constituted an abandonment of his applications. As noted, 

Ramirez-Coria knew he had to complete the biometric requirement, knew the 

penalties for failing to do it, and had ample time in which to complete it. All of the 

reasons that Ramirez-Coria asserts as good cause are attributable to his own failure to 

act, including his failure to obtain a copy of his birth certificate or other 

identification. See Umezurike v. Holder, 610 F.3d 997, 1002-03 (7th Cir. 2010)

(holding IJ did not abuse her discretion in determining applicant failed to 

demonstrate good cause where for 21⁄2 years, he failed to present himself for 

fingerprinting until three days before the hearing, by which time it was too late to 

receive the biometric data in time for the hearing).

The BIA provided a rational explanation for its conclusion and Ramirez-Coria 

has not shown that the Board’s decision “inexplicably departs from established 

policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory 

statements.” Infanzon, 386 F.3d at 1362 (internal quotation marks omitted). The 

petition for review is denied.