Vilma Mejia-Garcia v. Merrick Garland ( 2024 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1651 Doc: 52 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1651
VILMA MERCEDES MEJIA–GARCIA; B.A.M.; OSCAR ROBERTO MEJIA–
MEJIA; W.E.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: October 21, 2024 Decided: November 22, 2024
Before WILKINSON and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and Rossie D. ALSTON, Jr.,
United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Brendan H. Connors, HOLLAND AND KNIGHT LLP, Washington, D.C.,
for Petitioners. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R.
Goad, Jennifer A. Singer, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1651 Doc: 52 Filed: 11/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Vilma Mercedes Mejia-Garcia, on behalf of herself and her children, requests
remand of her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture, arguing that the immigration judge (IJ) failed to fully develop
the record and explain the elements of each claim when she appeared pro se at her final
hearing. Mejia-Garcia further contends that remand is appropriate on all her claims due to
the IJ’s failure to develop the record pursuant to Quintero v. Garland, 998 F.3d 612 (4th
Cir. 2021), which was decided while her first appeal was pending in this court. The
Government agrees, in part, and requests remand of Mejia-Garcia’s asylum claim for
further consideration in light of additional intervening caselaw related to the showing
required for past persecution.
Accordingly, we remand this case in its entirety to the Board of Immigration
Appeals with instructions to further remand to the IJ for reconsideration in light of
Quintero, and the additional intervening caselaw identified in the Government’s brief. See
Response Br. at 22. ∗ We express no view on the merits of Mejia-Garcia’s claim and do
not consider the Government’s suggestion of a partial remand as a confession of error.
REMANDED
∗
See, e.g., Chicas-Machado v. Garland, 73 F.4th 261, 265 (4th Cir. 2023); Sorto-
Guzman v. Garland, 42 F.4th 443, 449 (4th Cir. 2022); Portillo Flores v. Garland, 3 F.4th
615, 627–28 (4th Cir. 2021) (en banc); Bedoya v. Barr, 981 F.3d 240, 246 (4th Cir. 2020);
Cortez-Mendez v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 205, 209 n.* (4th Cir. 2019).
2