The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals abused their discretion in denying a family's motion to reopen their in-absentia removal orders when they failed to appear at their initial hearing due to traffic caused by major car accidents.
In *Montejo-Gonzalez v. Bondi*, decided February 5, 2026, the full en banc court granted Claudia Elena Montejo-Gonzalez's petition for review and remanded the case back to immigration authorities. The decision affects Montejo-Gonzalez and her children, Dany Juan Francisco Montejo and Maria Natalia Francisco Montejo, who were all ordered removed in absentia.
The case centers on the interpretation of "exceptional circumstances" under federal immigration law. According to the court documents, an immigration judge initially ordered the petitioners removed when they failed to appear for their scheduled hearing. The family subsequently moved to reopen their cases, explaining that they were late because of two major car accidents that caused a severe traffic jam preventing their timely arrival.
Both the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied the motion to reopen, ruling that traffic conditions do not constitute an "exceptional circumstance" sufficient to justify reopening an in-absentia removal order. This interpretation formed the basis of the family's appeal to the federal circuit court.
The legal framework governing this dispute stems from 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i), which allows an in-absentia removal order to be rescinded if the noncitizen can demonstrate that their failure to appear was due to "exceptional circumstances." The statute at 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1) defines exceptional circumstances and provides a non-exhaustive list of examples, including "battery or extreme" conditions, though the specific examples were not fully detailed in the available court summary.
The Ninth Circuit's en banc decision represents a shift in how immigration courts should evaluate motions to reopen removal proceedings. By finding that the lower courts abused their discretion, the appeals court established that extraordinary traffic conditions caused by multiple serious accidents can constitute the type of exceptional circumstances contemplated by federal immigration law.
This ruling has significant implications for immigration practice within the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction, which covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Immigration attorneys representing clients who missed court appearances due to circumstances beyond their control now have stronger precedent to cite when filing motions to reopen.
The case was argued and submitted on September 11, 2025, before an 11-judge en banc panel that included Chief Judge Mary H. Murguia and Circuit Judges Consuelo M. Callahan, Morgan B. Christen, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Michelle T. Friedland, Ryan D. Nelson, Kenneth K. Lee, Lucy H. Koh, Jennifer Sung, Salvador Mendoza Jr., and Roopali H. Desai.
Judge Roopali H. Desai authored the majority opinion, with Judge Michelle T. Friedland writing a concurrence and Judge Ryan D. Nelson filing a dissent. The fact that the court heard the case en banc, rather than with a typical three-judge panel, indicates the legal question's importance and the court's recognition that the issue required clarification across the circuit.
The decision in *Montejo-Gonzalez* follows ongoing debates about fairness in immigration proceedings and the standards applied when immigrants fail to appear for scheduled hearings. Immigration advocates have long argued that rigid interpretations of exceptional circumstances can lead to unjust deportations of individuals who face genuine obstacles to court attendance.
For immigration practitioners, this ruling provides important guidance on documenting circumstances that prevent court appearances. The decision suggests that courts should take a more nuanced approach when evaluating whether external factors beyond an immigrant's control prevented their attendance at crucial proceedings.
The case also highlights the significant consequences of missing immigration court hearings. In-absentia removal orders can be issued when individuals fail to appear, often leading to deportation proceedings that can separate families and disrupt established lives in the United States.
Looking ahead, the remand means the case will return to immigration authorities for reconsideration under the Ninth Circuit's guidance. The family will have another opportunity to present their case for reopening their removal proceedings, with the appeals court having established that traffic caused by major accidents can constitute exceptional circumstances.
This decision may also influence how other federal circuit courts approach similar questions about exceptional circumstances in immigration cases, potentially creating more uniform standards for when removal orders should be reopened due to circumstances beyond immigrants' control.