Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Sandra Madrigal Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, conceded removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) based on a criminal offense. An Immigration Judge denied her application for Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief on February 20, 2020. Madrigal Ramirez appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and requested administrative closure based on a pending U nonimmigrant status application. On July 17, 2025, the BIA affirmed the denial of CAT relief and denied the request for administrative closure.
Madrigal Ramirez petitioned for review, seeking reversal of the denial of administrative closure and a remand to address a due process claim regarding a purportedly deficient Notice to Appear (NTA). She did not challenge the denial of CAT relief in her appellate brief, waiving that argument. This is a nonprecedential Ninth Circuit memorandum. The decision is dated 2026-10-28 and concerns docket 25-5231. The account below is limited to the issues and relief actually resolved in this document; it does not treat allegations as established facts or convert a recommendation into a final district-court judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit dismissed the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Because Madrigal Ramirez conceded removability under a criminal provision covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), the jurisdiction-stripping provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) applied.
The court retained jurisdiction only over constitutional claims or questions of law under § 1252(a)(2)(D), but found Madrigal Ramirez raised neither regarding the denial of administrative closure. Additionally, her due process claim regarding the NTA’s failure to include the hearing date and time was raised for the first time on appeal and was therefore unexhausted, requiring dismissal.
Key Takeaways
- The court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of administrative closure for noncitizens removable due to criminal offenses under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), absent a constitutional claim or question of law.
- A petitioner waives any challenge to the denial of CAT relief by failing to raise it in the opening brief.
- Due process challenges to a Notice to Appear must be exhausted before the BIA; raising them for the first time in a petition for review results in dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- The jurisdictional bar of § 1252(a)(2)(C) applies where removability is conceded under § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i).
- The stay of removal dissolves upon issuance of the mandate.
Why It Matters
This unpublished memorandum disposition reinforces the Ninth Circuit’s strict application of the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act for criminal aliens. It clarifies that the denial of administrative closure is a discretionary decision shielded from review under § 1252(a)(2)(C) unless a colorable constitutional claim or question of law is presented. The decision also serves as a procedural reminder that NTA defects, including missing time and date information, must be raised before the agency to preserve them for judicial review.
Practitioners should read the ruling for its stated procedural posture and remedy, especially any deadline, burden of proof, or opportunity to amend. The distinction matters: an appellate affirmance or dismissal ends the appeal addressed, a district judge’s order supplies operative relief, and a magistrate judge’s recommendation remains subject to objections and adoption. Because unpublished dispositions and magistrate-judge recommendations have limited procedural force, the result should be used as a practical illustration rather than overstated as a new generally binding rule.