Case Explained: 26-1043: PIECZYNSKI v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-10

The ninth-circuit granted the petition for review and remanded the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals for further proceedings. The court held that the Immigration Judge abused its discretion by pretermitting the petitioners’ applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief due to a failure to provide adequate notice regarding biometrics obligations. Specifically, the court found that the Immigration Judge did not set a specific deadline for compliance, failed to inform the non-English speaking petitioners directly of their obligations, and relied solely on communication through counsel without an interpreter. The court applied the standard that where an IJ fails to specify that fingerprints must be submitted before a merits hearing or confirm understanding by a non-English speaker, pretermission constitutes an abuse of discretion. As a practical consequence, the petitioners’ removal proceedings are stayed pending the issuance of the mandate, and the case will be returned to the BIA for reconsideration consistent with this decision.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.