Jose Pineda Casasola v. Matthew Whitaker
This text of Jose Pineda Casasola v. Matthew Whitaker (Jose Pineda Casasola v. Matthew Whitaker) 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 30 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ANTONIO PINEDA CASASOLA, No. 16-73104
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-458-517
v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 27, 2018**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jose Antonio Pineda Casasola, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum
and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant
* 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). the petition for review and remand.
The BIA did not have the benefit of Gomez-Sanchez v. Sessions, 892 F.3d
985, 990 (9th Cir. 2018), which overruled Matter of G-G-S-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 339
(BIA 2014), and held the agency must consider an applicant’s mental condition at
the time of the crime when determining whether it was particularly serious, when it
issued its decision. Thus, we remand for further proceedings consistent with that
disposition.
We do not reach Pineda Casasola’s other contentions concerning his
eligibility for asylum and withholding, because the BIA did not reach them. See
Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In reviewing the decision
of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”)
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
2 16-73104
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jose Pineda Casasola v. Matthew Whitaker, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-pineda-casasola-v-matthew-whitaker-ca9-2018.