FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIELA JOVANNI PLANCARTE No. 19-73312 SAUCEDA; JOSMAR JOSE PLANCARTE SAUCEDA, Agency Nos. Petitioners, A202-097-301 A202-097-302 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney ORDER AND General, AMENDED Respondent. OPINION On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted June 10, 2021 Seattle, Washington Filed August 20, 2021 Amended January 14, 2022 Before: William A. Fletcher, Paul J. Watford, and Daniel P. Collins, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge W. Fletcher 2 PLANCARTE SAUCEDA V. GARLAND SUMMARY* Immigration The panel filed (1) an order amending the opinion filed August 20, 2021, denying the government’s petition for panel rehearing, and ordering that no further petitions for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc would be entertained; and (2) an amended opinion granting Mariela Plancarte Sauceda’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the denial of her application for asylum and related relief, and remanding. In the amended opinion, the panel held that the Board’s rejection of Plancarte’s proposed particular social group of “female nurses” on the ground that “nursing” is not an immutable characteristic was unreasonable, and that substantial evidence did not support the Board’s finding of no governmental involvement or acquiescence in Plancarte’s forced provision of medical services to cartel members. The panel first concluded that venue under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2) was proper in the Ninth Circuit where: (1) the immigration judge in this case formally transferred venue from Salt Lake City to Boise; (2) thereafter Plancarte never physically appeared in Salt Lake City, but rather remained in Boise; (3) the IJ indicated that proceedings were conducted in Boise, and the Board held that proper venue was in the Ninth Circuit; (4) both final hearing notices designated Boise as the location for the final hearing; and (5) the statute expressly allows any of the participants in a removal hearing * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. PLANCARTE SAUCEDA V. GARLAND 3 to appear at the designated hearing location by “video conference,” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1129a(b)(2)(A)(iii), and the IJ and the government attorney elected to do so from Salt Lake City. Citing Matter of Acosta, 19 I. & N. Dec. 211 (BIA 1985), the Board concluded that “female nurses” were not a cognizable “particular social group” because being a nurse, like being a taxi driver, is not an immutable characteristic. The panel held that the Board erred by simply citing Matter of Acosta, and failing to provide any meaningful analysis about the immutability of “female nurses.” The panel explained that in contrast to Acosta, Plancarte cannot avoid compulsion by the cartel simply by changing jobs, because even if she ceased employment as a nurse, she would still be a nurse, as she has received specialized medical training and has a professional license as a nurse. The panel observed that the IJ and …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals