JOSE PINEDA CASASOLA V. MATTHEW WHITAKER, No. 16-73104 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 30 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE ANTONIO PINEDA CASASOLA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-73104 Agency No. A098-458-517 v. MEMORANDUM* MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 27, 2018** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Jose Antonio Pineda Casasola, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant * 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). the petition for review and remand. The BIA did not have the benefit of Gomez-Sanchez v. Sessions, 892 F.3d 985, 990 (9th Cir. 2018), which overruled Matter of G-G-S-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 339 (BIA 2014), and held the agency must consider an applicant’s mental condition at the time of the crime when determining whether it was particularly serious, when it issued its decision. Thus, we remand for further proceedings consistent with that disposition. We do not reach Pineda Casasola’s other contentions concerning his eligibility for asylum and withholding, because the BIA did not reach them. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”) Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 2 16-73104

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.