FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE ALBERTO GONZALEZ- No. 14-72472 CARAVEO; MONICA RODRIGUEZ- FLORES, Agency Nos. Petitioners, A087-534-130 A087-534-132 v. OPINION JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted November 17, 2017 San Francisco, California Filed February 14, 2018 Before: Ronald M. Gould and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges, and Nancy Freudenthal, * Chief District Judge. Opinion by Judge Murguia * The Honorable Nancy Freudenthal, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation. 2 GONZALEZ-CARAVEO V. SESSIONS SUMMARY ** Immigration The panel denied Jose Alberto Gonzalez-Caraveo and Monica Rodriguez-Flores’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision, holding that this court has jurisdiction to review the agency’s administrative closure decisions and that the immigration judge and the BIA erred in not reviewing petitioners’ administrative closure request, but concluding that remand was not required, and also holding that substantial evidence supported the denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture. The panel noted that the BIA’s decision in Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), provided a list of non-exhaustive factors for an IJ and the BIA to consider in determining whether administrative closure is appropriate, and that, prior to Avetisyan, this court held, in Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2009), that it lacked jurisdiction over denials of administrative closure. The panel held that this court now has jurisdiction to review administrative closure claims because the Avetisyan factors provide a sufficiently meaningful standard against which to review IJ and BIA decisions regarding administrative closure. The panel concluded that the IJ erred in determining that he lacked authority to review petitioners’ motion for administrative closure and that the BIA also erred in ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. GONZALEZ-CARAVEO V. SESSIONS 3 concluding that the IJ had no jurisdiction over administrative closure. The panel observed that, ordinarily, remand would be the appropriate remedy for such errors, but concluded that remand was not warranted because petitioners had not argued or shown that they are eligible for administrative closure under the Avetisyan factors. The panel also rejected petitioners’ contention that the IJ and BIA’s failure to consider administrative closure violated their due process rights, concluding that petitioners had not demonstrated prejudice. Finally, the panel concluded that substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT relief, rejecting petitioners’ argument that the IJ and BIA failed to consider all evidence relevant to that claim. COUNSEL Jesse Evans-Schroeder (argued) and Matthew H. Green, Law Offices of Matthew H. Green, Tucson, Arizona, for Petitioners. Jonathan Robbins (argued), Jennifer Paisner Williams, and Jesse M. Bless, Senior Litigation Counsel; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent. 4 GONZALEZ-CARAVEO V. SESSIONS OPINION MURGUIA, Circuit Judge: Petitioners, Jose Alberto Gonzalez-Caraveo and ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals