Case ID: f-appx_653/html/0559-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Denys Ernesto Cerritos MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-72100
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 7, 2016 Pasadena, California
    FILED June 30, 2016
    Carrie A. Gonell, Attorney, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Jennifer A. Singer, Timothy Hayes, Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: REINHARDT and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges and KORMAN, Senior District Judge.
    
      
      The Honorable Edward R. Korman, Senior District Judge for the U.S, District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Denys Ernesto Cerritos Martinez appeals the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) order reinstating removal, and the Immigration Judge’s (“U”) order affirming the negative reasonable fear determination made by an asylum officer. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review, vacate both orders, and remand for new proceedings.

1. The record presented on appeal does not contain evidence sufficient to sustain the order reinstating removal. Before reinstating an order of removal, “[t]he immigration officer must obtain the prior order of exclusion, deportation, or removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 241.8(a)(1). The document the government identifies as Martinez’s prior order of removal is largely illegible, and the date on that document does not match the date listed on the “notice of intent/decision to reinstate prior order.” Because the government has not satisfied the applicable requirements, Martinez is not removable. under the current reinstatement order. See Lin v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 979, 983 (9th Cir. 2007).

2. As to the reasonable fear determination, the parties agree that the IJ’s one-page, checkbox order does not allow for adequate judicial review. See Ghaly v. I.N.S., 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995). Moreover, in the nearly four years that this appeal has been pending, the government has not been able to obtain the record of the reasonable fear proceedings. Martinez is therefore entitled to a new hearing before the IJ. See Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 741 (9th Cir. 2014).

PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED with instructions. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.