RANJIT GHOTRA V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-73146 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 20 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RANJIT SINGH GHOTRA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-73146 Agency No. A088-734-492 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 15, 2017** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Ranjit Singh Ghotra, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. In assessing Ghotra’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the BIA did * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). not have the benefit of Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017), which holds that the “one central reason” standard applies to asylum but not to withholding of removal. In addition, the BIA did not address whether the proposed particular social group was cognizable. Because the BIA’s rejection of Ghotra’s ineffective assistance claim relies in part on the agency’s underlying denial of withholding of removal for failure to show “one central reason” and because the BIA did not address whether Ghotra’s proposed particular social group is cognizable, we remand for the BIA to address his ineffective assistance claim. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 2 15-73146
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.
