United States v. 2020-01-10 | 19-70615 | JAVIER VALENCIA GUTIERREZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAVIER VALENCIA GUTIERREZ; et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-70615

Agency Nos. A202-159-863
A202-159-864
A202-159-865
A202-159-866
A202-159-867
A202-159-868

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).
FILED

JAN 10 2020

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

2 19-70615
(“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.