Court Opinion

ID: 9410544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-21 18:00:55.123423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:58.438468
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                       FILED
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       JUL 21 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LIDIA RUBI CORTEZ TELLEZ; TERESA                 No. 22-1401
ESMERALDA CORTEZ                                 Agency Nos.
CORTEZ; LUCIA CORTEZ                             A208-118-072
CORTEZ; LUIS RODRIGO CORTEZ                      A208-118-074
CORTEZ,
                                                 A208-118-073
                                                 A208-118-075
                Petitioners,

     v.                                          MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                         Argued and Submitted June 13, 2023
                                  Portland, Oregon
Before: RAWLINSON and SUNG, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, District
Judge.**

          Petitioner Lidia Rubi Cortez-Tellez, a native and citizen of Mexico,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA” or the “Board”)

*
      This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
       The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of New York, sitting by designation.
dismissal of her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination that she

had abandoned her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252 and, because the Board did not expressly adopt any part of the

Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision in its opinion, we limit our review to the

Board’s opinion. See Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir.

2020). We review an IJ’s determination that an application for immigration relief

has been abandoned for abuse of discretion. Gonzalez-Veliz v. Garland, 996 F.3d

942, 948 (9th Cir. 2021). We grant the petition and remand for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

      Cortez-Tellez filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under CAT in 2015, claiming that she feared returning to her home country

because she was abused by her husband. An IJ held a hearing on this application

on June 7, 2016. At that hearing, the IJ informed Cortez-Tellez of her obligation

to submit biometrics information as part of her application and explained that the

IJ could find that Cortez-Tellez abandoned her application if she did not comply

with the biometrics obligation by her next hearing. At that subsequent hearing in

May 2019, an IJ confirmed on the record that Cortez-Tellez had not submitted

her biometrics information, as she was required to do.

      When the IJ asked Cortez-Tellez why she had not fulfilled this

requirement, she responded, in essence, that she had forgotten to do so and that

she thought that her biometrics would be gathered at the May 2019 hearing. More

                                        2                                  22-1401
specifically, she responded: “Well, honestly, it’s something that I did forget, I

guess. . . . As a matter of fact, I even thought that maybe it was on this day that I

was going to [have] my fingerprints [done] and all that. . . . It was confusion on

my part, totally. I accept it.” Deeming this representation insufficient to establish

good cause that would excuse her failure to submit the required information, the

IJ found that Cortez-Tellez had abandoned her application for relief. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.47(c)–(d) (2023) (failure to comply with biometrics requirement

constitutes abandonment of application; abandonment may be excused by good

cause). The Board agreed with the IJ’s findings in full. This appeal followed.

      Cortez-Tellez contends that the IJ erred in finding that no good cause

excused her failure to comply with the biometrics regulations. In particular, she

asserts that, if the IJ and BIA assessed her omission under a totality-of-the-

circumstances standard, they would have found good cause for her failure to

comply. Given that Cortez-Tellez has been honest and credible in all her

representations and has fulfilled all the other requirements necessary to apply for

immigration relief, she argues that the BIA and IJ should have excused her failure

to comply with the biometrics requirement as an inadvertent and easily rectifiable

oversight.

      Assessing her failure to comply in light of the entire record, we agree. To

begin with, the Government at oral argument conceded that Cortez-Tellez, on top

of being credible and honest, completed everything that was otherwise required

of her with respect to her application. Moreover, Cortez-Tellez has shown a

                                         3                                    22-1401
willingness to submit her biometrics information at the earliest opportunity. At

bottom, then, there is good cause to excuse her failure to comply with the

requirement and to permit her another opportunity to do so.

      Indeed, the BIA said as much in a case involving nearly identical factual

circumstances. In Matter of L-H-A-, AXXX XXX 320 (B.I.A. April 29, 2016),

the BIA reviewed an IJ’s determination that an asylum application’s failure to

comply with the biometrics requirement constituted abandonment of her

applications. Although the applicant was “informed at the time of presenting the

[asylum] application . . . of the requirement that [she] submit herself for biometric

checks” and offered “forgetfulness” as the sole reason for her failure to comply,

the BIA concluded that the applicant “should be provided with a renewed

opportunity to comply with the biometrics requirements and present the merits of

her [Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal].” Id. And there,

unlike here, it was not clear from the record that the applicant had satisfied all the

other requirements to make an asylum application. If anything, then, the case for

a finding of good cause is stronger in this case.

      PETITION GRANTED AND CASE REMANDED.

                                          4                                    22-1401