Perez-Rojo, et al v. Holder, No. 05-77180 (9th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NOV 18 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS WALTER GUILLERMO PEREZ-ROJO, Petitioner, No. 05-77180 Agency No. A096-385-791 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted November 2, 2010 San Francisco, California Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, RYMER, Circuit Judge, and TRAGER, Senior District Judge.** Walter Guillermo Perez-Rojo petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) finding him removable as charged for illegal * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable David G. Trager, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. entry into the United States. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. ยง 1252, and grant the petition. Conceding that evidence of alienage should have been suppressed under Lopez-Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2008), the government asks us to remand. We decline to do so. No reason appears why DHS could not have developed whatever record it wanted to develop at the original hearing; the agency could not have been surprised by Lopez-Rodriguez, as our law has been clear for years. See, e.g., Orhorhaghe v. INS, 38 F.3d 488 (9th Cir. 1994).1 PETITION GRANTED. 1 When asked at oral argument what new evidence it would introduce on remand, the government could not answer because, DHS, not DOJ, had that information. See Oral Argument at 9:23, Perez-Rojo v. Holder, No. 05-77180, available at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2010/11/02/0577180.wma; id. at 12:53. We are thus left to speculate whether there is simply no evidence that the government could introduce to defend its actions, in which case the request for a remand was unnecessary, or whether the government did have such evidence, but a bureaucratic snafu caused it to fumble the appeal. The government s decision to ask for a remand without fully assessing its case wasted Perez-Rojo s and the court s resources, and, through no apparent fault of his own, forced the government s lawyer to argue an appeal he stood no chance of winning.
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.
