JAVIER VALENCIA GUTIERREZ V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 19-70615 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 10 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAVIER VALENCIA GUTIERREZ; et al., Petitioners, No. 19-70615 Agency Nos. v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, A202-159-863 A202-159-864 A202-159-865 A202-159-866 A202-159-867 A202-159-868 Respondent. MEMORANDUM* On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 8, 2020** Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Javier Valencia Gutierrez and his family, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision deeming their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”) abandoned. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an agency’s decision to deem an application abandoned for abuse of discretion. Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). We review de novo due process claims. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not abuse its discretion by deeming petitioners’ applications for relief abandoned where the IJ informed petitioners of the deadline for biometrics and warned that failure to comply would result in their applications being deemed abandoned, and petitioners did not show good cause for their failure to comply with the biometrics requirement. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c)-(d) (failure to provide biometrics as instructed by the IJ absent a showing of good cause constitutes abandonment of the application relief). Petitioners’ due process contention fails as well. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring agency error for a petitioner to establish a violation of due process). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 19-70615
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
