Ulises Guardado Ordonez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Ulises Guardado Ordonez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

585 F. App'x 469

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 20, 2014

Docket12-70561

StatusUnpublished

This text of 585 F. App'x 469 (Ulises Guardado Ordonez 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

Ulises Guardado Ordonez v. Eric Holder, Jr., 585 F. App'x 469 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Razmik Ovanesyan, a native of Iran and a citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We grant the petition for review and we remand.

In light of the IJ’s finding that Ovanes-yan was credible, the record does not support thé agency’s determination that his asylum application was untimely. See Khunaverdiants v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 760, 766-67 (9th Cir.2008) (agency erred in finding application untimely where IJ credited petitioner’s testimony about experiences in home country that occurred less than one year before he filed his asylum application).

In denying Ovanesyan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the agency found Ovanesyan failed to establish a nex *470 us to a protected ground. When the IJ and BIA issued their decisions in this case they did not have the benefit of this court’s decisions in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.2013) (en banc), Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir.2013), and Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir.2014), or the BIA’s decisions in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). Thus, we remand Ovanesyan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims to determine the impact, if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam). In light of this remand, we do not reach Ovanesyan’s remaining challenges to the agency’s denial of his asylum and withholding of removal claims at this time.

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 **

Razmik Ovanesyan, a native of Iran and a citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We grant the petition for review and we remand.

In light of the IJ’s finding that Ovanes-yan was credible, the record does not support thé agency’s determination that his asylum application was untimely. See Khunaverdiants v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 760, 766-67 (9th Cir.2008) (agency erred in finding application untimely where IJ credited petitioner’s testimony about experiences in home country that occurred less than one year before he filed his asylum application).

In denying Ovanesyan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the agency found Ovanesyan failed to establish a nex *470 us to a protected ground. When the IJ and BIA issued their decisions in this case they did not have the benefit of this court’s decisions in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.2013) (en banc), Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir.2013), and Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir.2014), or the BIA’s decisions in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). Thus, we remand Ovanesyan’s asylum and withholding of removal claims to determine the impact, if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam). In light of this remand, we do not reach Ovanesyan’s remaining challenges to the agency’s denial of his asylum and withholding of removal claims at this time.

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)

585 F. App'x 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ulises-guardado-ordonez-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack