Norma Xiloj-Chan v. Jefferson Sessions III, No. 16-1782 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1782 NORMA ELIZABETH XILOJ-CHAN, Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 17, 2017 Decided: November 3, 2017 Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and Raymond A. JACKSON, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anita Sinha, Director, Anupama Selvam, Daniel Gestal, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CLINIC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Victor M. Lawrence, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lisa M. Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Norma Elizabeth Xiloj-Chan, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s decision granting her relief in withholding-only removal proceedings. Xiloj-Chan argues that the reinstated order of removal does not bar her from also applying for asylum relief. In Mejia v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 573, 576, 584 (4th Cir. 2017), this Court held that the reinstatement provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) (2012), clearly precludes an alien subject to a reinstated order of removal from applying for asylum. Because XilojChan was subject to a reinstated order of removal, she was statutorily ineligible for asylum relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 2

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.