MARIO RAMIREZ-ZARCO V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 11-72973 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 23 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS MARIO RAMIREZ-ZARCO, Petitioner, No. 11-72973 Agency No. A092-881-356 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 21, 2014** Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Mario Ramirez-Zarco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( BIA ) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge s ( IJ ) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 11-72973 § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We grant the petition for review and remand. We Ramirez-Zarco indicated during his removal hearing that his family members could provide evidence to corroborate his claims regarding the date of his entry into the United States and continuous residence, but was not given an opportunity to do so. In concluding that the IJ was not required to continue proceedings to obtain such evidence, the BIA failed to apply the framework articulated in Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011), and erred in not providing Ramirez-Zarco an opportunity to provide corroboration. See id. at 109192 ( [A credible] applicant must be given notice of the corroboration required, and an opportunity to either provide that corroboration or explain why he cannot do so. ). We therefore remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 2 11-72973

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.