Jose Quintanilla Rodriguez v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ISMAEL QUINTANILLA No. 20-70676
RODRIGUEZ,
Agency No. A215-820-513
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Jose Ismael Quintanilla Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
*
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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo questions of law. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th
Cir. 2016). We grant the petition for review and we remand.
In his appeal brief to the BIA, Quintanilla Rodriguez raised a request to
remand his proceedings to submit further evidence of his claims. In his opening
brief, Quintanilla Rodriguez contends the BIA erred by failing to address that
argument. We agree. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir.
2005) (“[T]he BIA [is] not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.”); see
also Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In reviewing the
decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency. If
we conclude that the BIA’s decision cannot be sustained upon its reasoning, we
must remand to allow the agency to decide any issues remaining in the case.”).
Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand to the agency for further
proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-
18 (2002) (per curiam).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach the merits of Quintanilla
Rodriguez’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
Quintanilla Rodriguez’s removal is stayed pending a decision by the BIA.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
2 20-70676