Domingo Ramos v. Blanche

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 31 2026

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

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUANA DOMINGO RAMOS; et al., No. 25-6796

Agency Nos. Petitioners, A202-098-501

A202-098-502 v. A202-098-503

A202-098-504 TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney

A202-098-505 General,

Respondent. MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 29, 2026**

Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and MENDOZA, JR., Circuit Judges.

Juana Domingo Ramos and her children, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. reopen and review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Petitioners do not challenge the BIA’s denial of their motion to reopen as untimely, so we do not address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).

As to sua sponte reopening, we have jurisdiction to review this discretionary determination only for legal or constitutional error. See Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1227 (9th Cir. 2020). We find no legal or constitutional error underlying the BIA’s decision.

Petitioners’ equal protection challenge to the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act is foreclosed. See Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir. 2002); Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 517 (9th Cir. 2001).

The motion to stay removal is denied as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2 25-6796