Santos-Zacaria v. Garland (unpub.)
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES [598 U.S. 411 *; 143 S. Ct. 1103 **; 215 L. Ed. 2d 375 ***; 2023 U.S. LEXIS 1891 ****]
Earlier than Clement, Richman, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.
“Per Curiam: On remand from the Supreme Court docket, we’re tasked with reviewing petitioner Leon (Estrella) Santos-Zacaria’s remaining arguments in help of her petition for evaluation. We grant the petition partly, deny the petition partly, and remand. … After stating its conclusion, the BIA acknowledged a number of supportive information—some discovered by the IJ, others not. The BIA didn’t recommend that some information have been important to its conclusion whereas others have been merely confirmatory. Nor did the BIA point out whether or not its conclusion was primarily based on a elementary change in circumstances or on Santos’s purported capability to relocate fairly inside Guatemala. “The grounds upon which an administrative order should be judged are these upon which the report discloses that its motion was primarily based.” The BIA’s resolution displays that it hinged its resolution, partly, on disputed information, participating in prohibited factfinding. … the Authorities contends that our prior panel opinion, which held that substantial proof supported the BIA’s dedication that Santos might fairly relocate inside Guatemala, is legislation of the case that forecloses aid. We disagree. Our resolution right now resolves Santos’s impermissible-factfinding argument—an argument we beforehand held we didn’t have jurisdiction to contemplate. That the BIA’s resolution was “supported by report proof” and “considerably affordable” doesn’t reply whether or not the BIA violated its rules by impermissibly discovering information. As a result of the BIA violated its rules by impermissibly discovering information, we, constantly with our sister circuits, remand to the BIA. … Santos contends that the BIA additional erred by failing to deal with her pattern-or-practice declare. … The Authorities admits that the BIA “didn’t straight deal with Santos’s argument.” However the Authorities contends that the BIA didn’t want to deal with the pattern-or-practice declare as a result of the BIA’s previous persecution discovering rendered the pattern-or-practice declare moot. We disagree. The central query is “whether or not the BIA’s resolution ‘deprive[s] [us] of a reasoned foundation for evaluation.’” The BIA’s resolution right here did. … “It’s well-established that an company’s motion should be upheld, if in any respect, on the premise articulated by the company itself.” As a result of the BIA mentioned nothing about Santos’s declare, we remand it to the BIA. … For the foregoing causes, we GRANT the petition with respect to Santos’s software for withholding of elimination beneath 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b) and REMAND for additional proceedings. We DENY the petition with respect to Santos’s CAT declare.”
[Hats way off yet again to Paul W. Hughes, Sarah P. Hogarth and Benjamin Osorio!]
