Adnan Mohammed v. Jefferson Sessions, III
This text of Adnan Mohammed v. Jefferson Sessions, III (Adnan Mohammed v. Jefferson Sessions, III) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 31 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADNAN MOHAMMED, No. 17-70686
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-307-564
v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Adnan Mohammed, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
* 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). 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings, Perez-Lastor v. INS, 208 F.3d 773, 777 (9th Cir. 2000),
and we grant the petition for review.
Mohammed demonstrated that incompetent translations occurred during his
asylum hearing and that they prejudiced the outcome of his proceedings. See id. at
780 (incompetent translation claim requires a showing that “a better translation
would have made a difference in the outcome of the hearing”) (internal citation
omitted).
Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand Mohammed’s asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT claims to the agency for further proceedings
consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002)
(per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
2 17-70686
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Adnan Mohammed v. Jefferson Sessions, III, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adnan-mohammed-v-jefferson-sessions-iii-ca9-2018.