Case Explained: HULL-JUSAINO V. BLANCHE

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-07-02 The Ninth Circuit denied Rafael Hull-Jusaino’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s order dismissing his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture as abandoned. The court held that the Immigration Judge did not abuse her discretion in finding the applications abandoned due to Hull-Jusaino’s failure to submit required biometrics within the specified timeframe, as mandated by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c). The court found that Hull-Jusaino received clear notice of the requirement through a hearing record and a scheduling order warning of abandonment, yet failed to request a continuance or demonstrate good cause for his non-compliance, noting that the deadline largely preceded pandemic-related office closures and that existing fingerprints did not satisfy all biometric requirements. Additionally, the court declined to consider Hull-Jusaino’s argument regarding equitable tolling because he failed to exhaust this claim before the BIA as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), and dismissed his due process challenge for lack of agency error. As a practical consequence, the petition is denied, and the stay of removal previously in effect will dissolve upon the issuance of the mandate. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.