Case ID: f-appx_703/html/0547-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ranjit Singh GHOTRA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-73146
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 20, 2017
    Dominic Edward Capeci, Esquire, Attorney, The Law Offices of Dominic E. Cape-ci, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Stratton Christopher Strand, Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

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 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.