New 9th Circuit and BIA Immigration Cases

Lobos v. Holder (unpub)

newimmigrationcases — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 05:48:24 +0000

**Withholding; CAT**

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Lobos did not demonstrate a clear probability of persecution because Lobos has not shown that the harm her family suffered was on account of a protected ground. Nor has he shown that he is eligible for CAT.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2010/07/29/08-73283.pdf

Karapetyan v. Holder (unpub)

newimmigrationcases — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 05:46:41 +0000

No jx; waived args.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2010/07/29/08-72100.pdf

Singh v. Holder (unpub)

newimmigrationcases — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 05:45:31 +0000

**MTR**

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in its March 28, 2008, order denying petitioners’ motion to reopen as untimely and numerically barred because it was the second motion to reopen, filed nearly three after the BIA’s final decision, and the petitioners failed to present sufficient evidence of changed circumstances in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time and numerical limitation.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2010/07/29/08-71570.pdf

Quiroz v. Holder (unpub)

newimmigrationcases — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 04:27:29 +0000

**COR, MTR, IAC**

The BIA abused its discretion when it determined that petitioner Maria Valdovinos Quiroz’s untimely motion to reopen was not subject to equitable tolling of the motions deadline. Ineffective assistance of counsel is plain on the face of the record. At the initial hearing on remand, Maria’s former counsel failed to inform the IJ that her U.S. citizen daughter, who the BIA had earlier noted suffers from “serious” paranoid schizophrenia, would soon turn 21 years old. As a result, once the daughter, Ana, turned 21, she was no longer a “qualifying relative” for Maria, and the IJ was unable to consider Maria’s application for cancellation of removal. Remand for a prejudice determination, and any other equitable relief the agency may consider appropriate, including any relief for which Ana may be eligible. The Court also stays the mandate, and refer these petitions to the Circuit Mediator to explore possible resolution through mediation.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2010/07/29/08-70983.pdf

Mambou v. Holder (unpub)

newimmigrationcases — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 04:21:47 +0000

**MTRec**

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mambou’s motion to reconsider because the motion failed to identify any error of law or fact in the BIA’s October 13, 2007, order dismissing his appeal.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2010/07/29/08-70557.pdf

Gonzales-Solis v. Holder (unpub)

newimmigrationcases — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:54:32 +0000

**Ag. fel, delivery of cocaine; CAT**

Gonzales-Solis’ 2004 conviction for delivery of cocaine is an aggravated felony. ubstantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of deferral of removal under the CAT on the ground that Gonzales-Solis did not establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Guatemala.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2010/07/29/08-70381.pdf

Dhillon v. Holder (unpub)

newimmigrationcases — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:51:11 +0000

**MTRec**

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Dhillon’s motion to reconsider as untimely, where it was filed over two years after the BIA’s final administrative decision.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2010/07/29/08-70079.pdf

Pan v. Holder (unpub)

newimmigrationcases — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:50:04 +0000

**MTR, changed circs.**

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Pan’s motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed over two years after the BIA’s final administrative decision, and Pan failed to establish changed circumstances in China to qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limitation.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2010/07/29/07-75130.pdf

Huang v. Holder (unpub)

newimmigrationcases — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:48:20 +0000

**Credibility**

Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility determination because the inconsistencies identified by the agency regarding how Huang obtained his B-1 visa, whether his documents were mailed to him eight or twelve months after his arrival in the United States, and whether the Chinese doctor ordered two weeks of rest are minor and do not got to the heart of his claim of religious persecution. Furthermore, lack of authentication of Huang’s employment termination notice is an insufficient reason for deeming it unreliable.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2010/07/29/07-75046.pdf

Karagaryan v. Holder (unpub)

newimmigrationcases — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:46:01 +0000

**Persecution, from perspective of child**

Karagaryan witnessed harm to his father when he was a small child. Because the IJ did not have, and the BIA may not have had, the benefit of Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2007)(agency erred by failing to look at events forming the basis of past persecution from child’s perspective and measure the degree of injury by the impact on children of that age).

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2010/07/29/07-74442.pdf