Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10597472
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Buritica v. Bondi
No. 10597472 · Decided June 3, 2025
No. 10597472·Ninth Circuit · 2025·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
June 3, 2025
Citation
No. 10597472
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2025
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE GUZMAN BURITICA; et al., No. 24-295
Agency Nos.
Petitioners, A240-246-725
A240-083-059
v.
A240-083-060
PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 21, 2025**
Before: SILVERMAN, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Guzman Buritica and his family, natives and citizens of Colombia,
petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under
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.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ timely motion to
reopen where petitioners did not submit previously unavailable, material evidence.
See 8 U.S.C. §1229a(c)(7)(B); see also Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986
(9th Cir. 2010) (BIA can deny a motion to reopen for “failure to introduce
previously unavailable, material evidence”).
We do not consider the materials petitioners reference in the opening brief
that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-
64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
To the extent petitioners seek review of the BIA’s October 4, 2023, order,
the petition for review is untimely. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (petition for review
must be filed within 30 days of removal order); Alonso-Juarez v. Garland, 80 F.4th
1039, 1046-47 (9th Cir. 2023) (section 1252(b)(1) deadline is mandatory though
not jurisdictional).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 24-295
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2025 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2025 MOLLY C.
02COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JORGE GUZMAN BURITICA; et al., No.
03A240-083-060 PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent.
04On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 21, 2025** Before: SILVERMAN, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 3 2025 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Buritica v. Bondi in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on June 3, 2025.
Use the citation No. 10597472 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.