Owen Fagan v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Owen Fagan v. Eric Holder, Jr.

575 F. App'x 815

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 28, 2014

Docket12-73959

StatusUnpublished

This text of 575 F. App'x 815 (Owen Fagan v. Eric Holder, Jr.) 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

Owen Fagan v. Eric Holder, Jr., 575 F. App'x 815 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Owen Augustus Fagan, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming a decision of an immigration judge (“U”) denying his application for cancellation of removal and his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing de novo questions of law, Doissaint v. Mu-kasey, 538 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir.2008), we grant the petition for review and remand the matter to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with our disposition.

The agency erred by failing to consider Fagan’s properly raised and briefed request for a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1996). See id. (“Us and the BIA are not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, we remand the matter to the agency for it to address this issue in the first instance. See Casares-Castellon v. *816 Holder, 603 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam) (remanding a case to the agency for a merits determination in the first instance).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Owen Augustus Fagan, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming a decision of an immigration judge (“U”) denying his application for cancellation of removal and his request for a continuance. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing de novo questions of law, Doissaint v. Mu-kasey, 538 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir.2008), we grant the petition for review and remand the matter to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with our disposition.

The agency erred by failing to consider Fagan’s properly raised and briefed request for a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1996). See id. (“Us and the BIA are not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, we remand the matter to the agency for it to address this issue in the first instance. See Casares-Castellon v. *816 Holder, 603 F.3d 1111, 1113 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam) (remanding a case to the agency for a merits determination in the first instance).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

575 F. App'x 815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owen-fagan-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack