Martinez Rodriguez: The BIA Had to Address the Submitted I-94

In Martinez Rodriguez v. Bondi, No. 24-6081 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2026), the Ninth Circuit partly granted a petition because the Board of Immigration Appeals’ stated reason for denying remand did not account for a submitted document bearing a parole stamp and a Form I-94 label. The court did not authenticate that document or order the Notice to Appear changed. It denied the separate asylum and withholding challenges.

The five-page memorandum is unpublished and is not precedent except as Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 permits. Its useful distinction is between asking an agency to address evidence already submitted and asking a reviewing court to decide the disputed underlying fact itself.

The petition presented two different agency questions

The applicant and her minor child sought review of denials of asylum and withholding of removal. They also challenged the BIA’s refusal to remand so that the agency could consider revising the charging allegations in the Notice to Appear based on claimed parole status. Success on the remand issue would not automatically establish the protection claims. The memorandum identifies the separate issues and standards at pages 2–3.

The court reviewed the protection findings for substantial evidence and the remand denial for abuse of discretion. In addressing remand, it focused on the reason the BIA actually gave. Keeping those questions separate explains why the same petition produced both a denial and a partial grant.

The stated absence of an I-94 conflicted with the submitted paper

The BIA’s only stated reason for refusing remand was that the record did not contain a copy of the applicant’s Form I-94. But she had submitted a document with a parole stamp and the words “Form I-94” at the bottom. The court identified that conflict at page 4. It was not simply a case in which an applicant promised to locate a missing record later.

The distinction matters when preparing an agency challenge. Locate the actual exhibit, its filing history and the passage in the agency decision that describes it. An assertion that the agency overlooked something becomes more precise when the filed document and the agency’s stated reason can be compared directly. Merely attaching additional material for the first time in court presents a different question.

The government’s later explanations did not supply the BIA’s reasons

In court, the government argued that the document was unreliable because it lacked the applicant’s name or other identifying information. It also argued that counsel’s earlier admission about parole status was determinative. Those were not the grounds the BIA had given. The panel declined to sustain the discretionary agency decision on a different justification supplied during judicial review. See pages 4–5.

The memorandum also noted that counsel had retracted the earlier admission at the merits hearing after recognizing the claimed I-94. The parties agreed that the immigration judge’s reasoning about that document—which the BIA had not relied on—was incorrect. That sequence does not establish a universal right to withdraw every concession; it explains why the particular agency and litigation record needed careful separation.

Remand left authenticity and charging consequences undecided

The court expressly declined to decide whether the Notice to Appear must be revised, where the claimed I-94 came from, or what further proceedings a revision might require. Those matters remained for the agency in the first instance. Page 5 therefore limits the result as much as page 4 explains the error.

A partial remand should not be described as proof that the applicant was paroled, an order terminating removal proceedings, an admission to the United States, or a custody-release decision. Someone evaluating a similar record still needs evidence connecting the document to the person, the complete charging history and the agency’s subsequent ruling.

The protection claims failed on their own record

The panel upheld the agency’s finding that the applicant had not shown the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to control her abusive former partner or father. It considered her failure to report the abuse and the record concerning available legal protection. See pages 3–4. The memorandum’s record-specific conclusion is not a categorical rule requiring every abuse survivor to make a police report regardless of danger or futility.

The CAT claim had not been meaningfully challenged before either the BIA or the court and was treated as both unexhausted and waived. The remand concerning the charging document did not reverse those separate protection dispositions. See page 2, footnote 1.

Read the result alongside the actual agency record

A focused review should compare the complete submitted I-94 image and identifying evidence, the Notice to Appear and pleadings, the hearing record concerning counsel’s admission and retraction, the remand motion, and the BIA’s exact reasoning. Distinguish a document the agency overlooked from one never submitted, and an unresolved factual dispute from an established finding.

The court denied the removal-stay motion but kept the temporary stay in place until the mandate issued. That was the memorandum’s stated procedural protection, not an indefinite stay created by remand. See page 5. This analysis does not report later agency proceedings or establish a present stay for another person.

Our admission-record guide addresses the different task of identifying the dates behind an overstay allegation. For review of a charging document, agency decision and available defense, see our immigration defense practice.