Ruiz-Acosta v. Blanche

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 10 2026

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

HERMAN GABRIEL RUIZ-ACOSTA; No. 25-3456 JEIMMY VIVIANA ROJAS-MILLAN; S.

Agency Nos. E. R.-R., A220-353-045

A220-486-548 Petitioners, A220-486-549 v.

ORDER TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 26-1043 HERMAN GABRIEL RUIZ-ACOSTA;

Agency Nos. JEIMMY VIVIANA ROJAS-MILLAN; S.

A220-353-045 E. R.-R.,

A220-486-548 A220-486-549

Petitioners, v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

Before: N.R. SMITH, BENNETT, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.

The petition for panel rehearing, Dkt. No. 32, is GRANTED. The memorandum disposition filed on May 26, 2026, is hereby amended. The superseding amended disposition will be filed concurrently with this order. No further petitions may be filed.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 10 2026

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HERMAN GABRIEL RUIZ-ACOSTA; No. 25-3456 JEIMMY VIVIANA ROJAS-MILLAN; S.

E. R.-R., Agency Nos.

A220-353-045 Petitioners,

A220-486-548 A220-486-549 v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney AMENDED MEMORANDUM* General,

Respondent.

HERMAN GABRIEL RUIZ-ACOSTA; No. 26-1043 JEIMMY VIVIANA ROJAS-MILLAN; S.

E. R.-R., Agency Nos.

A220-353-045 Petitioners, A220-486-548

A220-486-549 v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 22, 2026** Pasadena, California

Before: N.R. SMITH, BENNETT, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.

Herman Gabriel Ruiz-Acosta, Jeimmy Viviana Rojas-Millan, and S. E. R.-R. (“Petitioners”) seek review of the decisions of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) to pretermit their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “Where, as here, the BIA issues a Burbano affirmance, we review the IJ’s decision as if it were the decision of the BIA.” Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009). We grant the petition and remand the matter to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Because the BIA here affirmed the IJ decision citing Burbano, “all issues presented before the IJ are deemed to have been” exhausted. Arreguin-Moreno v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1041 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). “In the administrative proceedings,” the IJ considered the “general argument” that Petitioners had complied with the biometrics order even though they did not complete biometrics before their merits hearing. Bare v. Barr, 975 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 2020). The “more specific” arguments Petitioners raise before us related to that issue have therefore been exhausted. Id.

The IJ failed to provide Petitioners with adequate notice of their obligations to complete biometrics. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c), (d). The IJ never ordered Petitioners to complete biometrics by a certain date; instead, the IJ only required Petitioners to file “proof that [they] are actively pursuing the biometrics compliance”—proof that the IJ later acknowledged Petitioners “submitted.” Nor did the IJ ever inform Petitioners directly of their biometrics obligations; instead, the IJ communicated all directions through counsel without an interpreter. The IJ therefore abused its discretion by pretermitting Petitioners’ applications. See Karapetyan v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1118, 1131 (9th Cir. 2008) (IJ abused its discretion by pretermitting an application without ever specifying that “fingerprints had to be submitted before the beginning of the merits hearing”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Owino v. Holder, 575 F.3d 956, 958 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam); Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289, 1291, 1293–94 (9th Cir. 2008) (IJ abused its discretion by pretermitting an application without confirming that the non- English speaking applicant “understood” the biometric instructions). Gonzalez- Veliz v. Garland does not govern here because, unlike in Gonzalez-Veliz, Petitioners did not “receive[] adequate notice” of their biometrics obligations. 996 F.3d 942, 949 (9th Cir. 2021). We therefore grant the petition and remand the matter to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED.1