Edmundo Evan-Sanguino v. Loretta E. Lynch

637 F. App'x 303
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 11, 2016
Docket09-72980
StatusUnpublished

This text of 637 F. App'x 303 (Edmundo Evan-Sanguino v. Loretta E. Lynch) 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.

Bluebook
Edmundo Evan-Sanguino v. Loretta E. Lynch, 637 F. App'x 303 (9th Cir. 2016).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

1. This case is REMANDED to the Board of Immigration Appeals for further proceedings in light of Correo-Ruiz v. Lynch, 809 F.3d 543 (9th Cir.2015). The Board shall grant Petitioner an opportunity to supplement the record.

2. We reject Evan-Sanguino’s argument that the Board denied relief in derogation of the law of the case. See Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320 (9th Cir.1991) (explaining the law-of-the-case doctrine and discussing its discretionary nature). There was no law of the case because neither our remand order nor the first Board decision definitively established that Evan-Sanguino was entitled to relief.

3. We also reject Evan-Sanguino’s argument that the Board deprived him of due process by deciding his appeal based on the intervening authority of Matter of Briones, 24 I. & N. Dec. 355 (BIA 2007), without allowing him to brief the implications of that case. Even if there were a procedural problem, Evan-Sanguino cannot make the required showing of prejudice. See United States v. Cerda-Pena, 799 F.2d 1374, 1378-79 (9th Cir.1986). Evan-Sanguino complains that he was never afforded an opportunity to argue that Briones should not apply retroactively in his case. Evan-Sanguino will have an opportunity to make that argument on remand.

Petition for review GRANTED. REMANDED with instructions.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Rolando Cerda-Pena
799 F.2d 1374 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)
David Correo-Ruiz v. Loretta E. Lynch
809 F.3d 543 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
BRIONES
24 I. & N. Dec. 355 (Board of Immigration Appeals, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
637 F. App'x 303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edmundo-evan-sanguino-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2016.