MARIA CRISTINA CASTROS- RENDEROS and J.J.H.C. v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA CRISTINA CASTROS-
RENDEROS and J.J.H.C.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General
Respondent.
No. 20-70049
BIA A208-546-280
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 3, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,*** District
Judge.
* 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).
*** The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for the
District of Montana, sitting by designation.
FILED
APR 3 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Petitioner Maria Castro-Renderos,1 a native and citizen of El Salvador,
failed to appear at her removal hearing and was ordered removed in absentia. She
filed a motion to reopen, arguing she did not receive sufficient notice and was
unaware of the removal hearing. She now petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal of an Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her motion to reopen the in absentia order of removal.
Castro-Renderos also moves to supplement the certified administrative record with
two Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) I-830E forms (“Supplemental
Documents”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
This court’s review is generally limited to the information in the
administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en
banc). “We may review out-of-record evidence only where (1) the [BIA] considers
the evidence; or (2) the [BIA] abuses its discretion by failing to consider such
evidence upon the motion of an applicant.” Id. at 964. The Board did neither—
accordingly, we may not consider the Supplemental Documents in reviewing
Castro-Renderos’ petition. However, as agency records, it appears the
Supplemental Documents should have been included in the certified administrative
record in the first instance. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(C). Further, they likely bear on
1 “Castro-Renderos” refers to both the lead petitioner and her minor son as rider-
derivative.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Castro-Renderos’ notice claim, and the failure to include that information in the
record does not seem attributable to her. Because we may not review the
Supplemental Documents, but the record appears incomplete without them, we
remand to the BIA with directions to remand to the IJ for consideration of whether
to include the Supplemental Documents into the record in the first instance and
whether to reopen accordingly. In light of this disposition, we do not reach the
merits of Castro-Renderos’ petition to reopen. Castro-Renderos’ motion to
supplement the record on appeal (Dkt. 13) is DENIED.
REMANDED. Each party shall pay its costs on appeal.

-- 3 of 3 --