eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2023-01

Maura Ramirez Escalante v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAURA BEATRIZ RAMIREZ                           No.    18-71310
ESCALANTE; et al.,
Agency Nos.       A208-927-324
Petitioners,                                      A208-927-325
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2022**
Before:      GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Maura Beatriz Ramirez Escalante, a native and citizen of El Salvador, and
her minor daughter, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petition pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for asylum,
*
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).
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review de novo
questions of law. Madrigal v. Holder,
    716 F.3d 499
    , 503 (9th Cir. 2013). We
grant the petition for review and remand.
The agency denied asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection
based on the determination that both petitioners are natives and citizens of El
Salvador. The agency failed, however, to acknowledge and address petitioners’
claims as to the minor petitioner, who is a native and citizen of Guatemala. See
Rios v. Lynch,
    807 F.3d 1123
    , 1126 (9th Cir. 2015) (failure to address a claim
“constitutes error and requires remand.”). Thus, we grant the petition for review
and remand petitioners’ asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims to the
BIA for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura,
    537 U.S. 12
    , 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
The government must bear the costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
2                                 18-71310