Beatriz Corona Chavez v. William Barr ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 27 2019
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    BEATRIZ CORONA CHAVEZ, AKA                      No.    14-70746
    Beatrice Adriana Corona,
    Agency No. A205-387-121
    Petitioner,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
    WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted November 12, 2019**
    Pasadena, California
    Before: FERNANDEZ and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and OTAKE,*** District
    Judge.
    Beatriz Corona Chavez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
    of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of her appeal from the
    *
    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).
    ***
    The Honorable Jill Otake, United States District Judge for the District
    of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
    Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her requests for withholding of removal as
    well as deferred removal pursuant to the Convention Against Torture. She also
    challenges the BIA’s failure to remand her case to an IJ for a competency hearing
    after the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) notified the BIA of her
    diagnosis for adjustment disorder with anxiety and her possible class membership
    in the Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder, No. CV 10-02211 DMG (DTBx) (C.D. Cal.)
    litigation. We grant the petition, vacate the BIA’s decision, and remand.
    We have jurisdiction to address the competency issues raised in this appeal
    because they are purely legal, see 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (a)(2)(D), and are therefore
    excepted from 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (a)(2)(C).
    The BIA erred by serving as a fact finder and effectively determining that
    Corona Chavez was competent to represent herself on appeal. The BIA had no
    findings to review regarding Corona Chavez’s competency to represent herself.
    Moreover, DHS’s notice sufficiently alerted the BIA that she may be mentally
    incompetent to represent herself during the appeal. To the extent that the BIA
    relied on the absence of additional evidence accompanying the DHS notice, it
    should have remanded to the IJ with instructions to receive information from DHS
    concerning Corona Chavez’s mental competency. See Calderon-Rodriguez v.
    Sessions, 
    878 F.3d 1179
    , 1183 (9th Cir. 2018). And because the BIA could not
    make findings regarding Corona Chavez’s competency, it should have remanded to
    2                                  14-70746
    the IJ to assess her competency under the framework articulated in Matter of M-A-
    M-, 
    25 I&N Dec. 474
     (BIA 2011).
    We vacate the BIA’s decision and remand to the BIA with instructions to
    remand to the IJ for an assessment about Corona Chavez’s competency to
    represent herself in her BIA appeal and whether she should be provided with a
    qualified representative in accordance with Franco-Gonzalez.
    Petition GRANTED, VACATED, and REMANDED.
    3                                  14-70746
    FILED
    NOV 27 2019
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    Corona Chavez v. Barr, No. 14-70746                                             U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
    I fully agree with the majority that the petition should be granted. However,
    in my view it is not clear that either the regulation,1 the case law,2 or the
    Implementation Order3 requires that the IJ make findings regarding whether
    Corona is competent to represent herself before the BIA on appeal.4 I would
    simply remand the case to the BIA, rather than directing that it further remand to
    the IJ. See Recinos De Leon v. Gonzales, 
    400 F.3d 1185
    , 1189 (9th Cir. 2005)
    Thus, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.
    1
    See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1003.1
    (b)(3), (d)(3)–(4).
    2
    See In re M-A-M-, 
    25 I. & N. Dec. 474
    , 478, 484 (B.I.A. 2011).
    3
    See Order Further Implementing This Court’s Permanent Injunction,
    Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder, No. CV-10-02211 DMG (DTBx), 
    2014 WL 5475097
    ,
    at *3, *10 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2014); see also Partial Judgment and Permanent
    Injunction, Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder, No. CV-10-02211 DMG (DTBX) 
    2013 WL 8115423
     (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2013).
    4
    Corona’s prior representation before the IJ is not in question here.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-70746

Filed Date: 11/27/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/27/2019