Rivas Estrada v. Holder

356 F. App'x 81
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedDecember 7, 2009
Docket05-71001
StatusUnpublished

This text of 356 F. App'x 81 (Rivas Estrada v. Holder) 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
Rivas Estrada v. Holder, 356 F. App'x 81 (9th Cir. 2009).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Rolando Abilio Rivas Estrada, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his applications for adjustment of status and voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1145 (9th Cm. 2002). We grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

The IJ denied Rivas Estrada’s request for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) on the mistaken assumption that his application had been previously considered and denied in a prior proceeding. We reject the government’s contention that Rivas Estrada failed to exhaust this issue. See Alvarez Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 493 (9th Cir.2008). We accordingly remand to the agency to consider Rivas Estrada’s eligibility for relief under the CAT in the first instance. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

On remand, the agency should also consider whether Rivas Estrada is eligible for derivative adjustment of status in light of our recent decisions in Landin-Molina v. Holder, 580 F.3d 913 (9th Cir.2009) and Morales-Garcia v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir.2009).

In light of our disposition, we need not address Rivas Estrada’s remaining contentions.

The government shall bear the costs for this petition for review.

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

Related

Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Ventura
537 U.S. 12 (Supreme Court, 2002)
Landin-Molina v. Holder
580 F.3d 913 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Morales-Garcia v. Holder
567 F.3d 1058 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Figueroa v. Mukasey
543 F.3d 487 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
356 F. App'x 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivas-estrada-v-holder-ca9-2009.