Valencia Martinez v. Sessions, No. 14-70339 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction an appeal of an IJ's negative reasonable fear determination in reinstatement removal proceedings. The panel found that the final administrative order was the BIA's dismissal of petitioner's appeal and thus petitioner timely filed his petition for review within 30 day's of the BIA's decision. The panel also held that the government waived any challenge to the arguments raised by petitioner because the government did not offer any argument on the merits of this petition. Accordingly, the court remanded for further consideration.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel granted a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing for lack of jurisdiction an appeal of an immigration judge’s negative reasonable fear determination in reinstatement removal proceedings. The panel held that under the circumstances of this case the Board’s decision dismissing Martinez’s appeal was the final administrative order for purposes of determining the timeliness of his petition for review to this court. The panel concluded that because Martinez filed his petition within 30 days of the Board’s decision his petition was timely. The panel noted that the government waived review of the merits of the reasonable fear determination by failing to offer any argument on it. The panel remanded for the agency to give proper consideration to Martinez’s testimony about police corruption and acquiescence in MS-13 gang violence, to accord proper weight to the Department of State Country Report on El Salvador, and in particular, evidence of corruption and inability or unwillingness to prosecute gang violence, and to apply the correct legal standards to Martinez’s Convention Against Torture claim. MARTINEZ V. SESSIONS 3
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on October 12, 2017.
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.