JOSE QUINTANILLA RODRIGUEZ V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 20-70676 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED AUG 25 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE ISMAEL QUINTANILLA RODRIGUEZ, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-70676 Agency No. A215-820-513 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 17, 2021** Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Jose Ismael Quintanilla Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention * 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). Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We grant the petition for review and we remand. In his appeal brief to the BIA, Quintanilla Rodriguez raised a request to remand his proceedings to submit further evidence of his claims. In his opening brief, Quintanilla Rodriguez contends the BIA erred by failing to address that argument. We agree. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he BIA [is] not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.”); see also 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. If we conclude that the BIA’s decision cannot be sustained upon its reasoning, we must remand to allow the agency to decide any issues remaining in the case.”). Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 1618 (2002) (per curiam). In light of this disposition, we do not reach the merits of Quintanilla Rodriguez’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. Quintanilla Rodriguez’s removal is stayed pending a decision by the BIA. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 2 20-70676
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.
