The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review filed by Jose Israel Chamorro-Castillo, a Mexican national, reversing the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal and ordering fresh consideration of his case.
The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges W. Fletcher, Berzon, and R. Nelson, issued a memorandum decision on Jan. 13, 2026, in the case *Jose Israel Chamorro-Castillo v. Pamela Bondi*, No. 20-73402. The court unanimously concluded the case was suitable for decision without oral argument.
Chamorro-Castillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, had petitioned for review of a BIA decision dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge's denial of his motion to reopen immigration proceedings. The case originated with Agency No. A215-937-661 and was submitted to the appeals court on Jan. 9, 2026.
The Ninth Circuit's decision to grant the petition and remand the case centers on the application of *United States v. Rivera-Valdes*, 157 F.4th 978 (9th Cir. 2025), a recent en banc decision issued while Chamorro-Castillo's petition was pending before the court.
According to the court's memorandum, the *Rivera-Valdes* decision addresses fundamental requirements for initiating removal proceedings against noncitizens. The court noted that to remove a noncitizen from the United States who is either inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182 or deportable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227, the government must provide the individual with written notice of the removal proceedings.
The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in *Campos-Chaves v. Garland*, 602 U.S. 447, 451 (2024), which established notice requirements under 8 U.S.C. § 1229. These notice provisions are critical to ensuring due process rights for individuals facing removal from the United States.
The *Rivera-Valdes* en banc decision represents a significant development in immigration law within the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction, which covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. En banc decisions are issued by the full court rather than a three-judge panel and carry greater precedential weight.
The timing of the *Rivera-Valdes* decision while Chamorro-Castillo's case was pending created the need for the BIA to reconsider its earlier dismissal in light of the new legal standard. The Ninth Circuit's remand order ensures that immigration authorities will apply the most current interpretation of federal immigration law to Chamorro-Castillo's circumstances.
The case involves complex procedural immigration law, specifically the standards for motions to reopen immigration proceedings. Such motions allow individuals to present new evidence or legal arguments that were not available during their initial removal proceedings. The denial of these motions by both the Immigration Judge and the BIA prompted Chamorro-Castillo's appeal to federal court.
Immigration cases involving motions to reopen often turn on technical legal requirements and deadlines. The *Rivera-Valdes* decision may have established new precedent affecting how these motions are evaluated, particularly regarding notice requirements that must be satisfied before removal proceedings can legally commence.
The Ninth Circuit's decision was marked as "not for publication," meaning it will not serve as binding precedent in future cases except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. However, the underlying *Rivera-Valdes* en banc decision that prompted the remand does carry precedential weight throughout the circuit.
Pamela Bondi, who served as Attorney General at the time of the case filing, was named as the respondent in her official capacity. The case reflects the ongoing complexities of federal immigration enforcement and the evolving legal landscape governing removal proceedings.
The remand to the BIA means Chamorro-Castillo's case will receive fresh consideration under the legal standards established in *Rivera-Valdes*. This could potentially affect the outcome of his motion to reopen, depending on how the new precedent applies to his specific circumstances.
The case illustrates the significant impact that appellate court decisions can have on pending immigration matters. When higher courts issue new interpretations of immigration law, lower courts and administrative bodies must reconsider cases that may be affected by the new legal standards.
For Chamorro-Castillo, the Ninth Circuit's decision represents a procedural victory that provides another opportunity for his immigration case to be reviewed. The ultimate outcome will depend on how the BIA applies the *Rivera-Valdes* decision to the facts and legal arguments in his motion to reopen.
The case will now return to the BIA for reconsideration consistent with the Ninth Circuit's remand order and the legal principles established in the *Rivera-Valdes* en banc decision.