The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a petition from Flavia Beatriz Romero Zuniga, a native of Mexico, to review an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) regarding her removal proceedings. This ruling affects her immigration status and underscores the complexities of navigating the U.S. immigration system.

Romero Zuniga sought to reopen her removal proceedings, claiming she did not receive proper notice of her hearing. The court’s decision highlights the importance of legal representation and the implications of procedural errors in immigration cases.

The case, docketed as 20-70478, was submitted for review on October 26, 2026, in Pasadena, California. The panel included Circuit Judges R. Nelson and H.A. Thomas, along with District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, who sat by designation.

Background

Flavia Beatriz Romero Zuniga was involved in immigration proceedings due to her status as a non-citizen in the United States. She faced removal after a hearing in 2005, which she claims she did not attend because she did not receive notice. After years of absence from the immigration process, she filed a motion to reopen her case.

The BIA previously denied her motion to reopen, leading Romero Zuniga to petition the Ninth Circuit for review. Her main argument was that she had not received notice of the October 28, 2005, hearing, which is a critical factor in immigration law. Under U.S. immigration law, individuals can appeal a removal order if they can prove they did not receive proper notice.

The Ruling

The Ninth Circuit ruled against Romero Zuniga, affirming the BIA's decision. The court found that the BIA's conclusion was legally correct and factually supported. The opinion stated, "Romero Zuniga did not dispute [before the BIA] that a Form EOIR-28 was filed on her behalf by her former counsel." This form indicated that her attorney had entered an appearance on her behalf, which the court interpreted as constructive notice.

The court also noted that Romero Zuniga's argument that her attorney's entry of appearance was limited was invalid. According to the BIA, an attorney cannot make a limited appearance in removal proceedings. The court emphasized that the BIA's decision was based on substantial evidence and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for Romero Zuniga and others in similar situations. It reinforces the importance of maintaining clear communication with legal representatives in immigration cases. The decision also emphasizes the challenges faced by individuals seeking to challenge removal orders, particularly when they claim lack of notice.

Moreover, the ruling sets a precedent regarding the responsibilities of both attorneys and their clients in immigration proceedings. It highlights that once an attorney is engaged, the client may not be able to claim ignorance of proceedings based on the actions of their legal representative.

What's Next

Romero Zuniga's options moving forward are limited. The court's decision can be appealed, but it is unclear if she will pursue further legal action. There are no related cases pending that could directly affect her situation at this time. The ruling serves as a reminder of the complexities of immigration law and the importance of timely and effective legal representation.