FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10617737
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Gomez Hernandez v. Bondi

No. 10617737 · Decided June 26, 2025
No. 10617737 · 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 26, 2025
Citation
No. 10617737
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CINDY YAMILETH GOMEZ No. 24-29 HERNANDEZ; et al., Agency Nos. A220-454-408 Petitioners, A220-454-409 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 18, 2025** Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. Cindy Yamileth Gomez Hernandez and her child, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and * 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). protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s summary dismissal of an appeal. Nolasco-Amaya v. Garland, 14 F.4th 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2021). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in summarily dismissing petitioners’ appeal where the notice of appeal did not identify specific challenges to the IJ’s decision, and petitioners did not file a separate written brief despite stating that they would. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(A), (E); see also Singh v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary dismissal appropriate where notice of appeal lacked sufficient specificity and no separate written brief was filed). We do not address petitioners’ contentions as to the merits of their claims because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 24-29
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2025 MOLLY C.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2025 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Gomez Hernandez v. Bondi in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on June 26, 2025.
Use the citation No. 10617737 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →