UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT HENR Y TOR R ES SANDOVAL, AKA He nry Flore s, Pe t i tione r, v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-70432 Age n c y No. A076-355-299 ORDER

B e fore : C HR ISTEN an d WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SOTO, * Distric t Judge . R e sponde nt’ s unoppose d

m otion to a

m e nd the m e m orandum

disposition is gran te d. An a

m e nde d m e m orandum

disposition will be

file d sim ulta ne o usly . Pursua nt to Ge ne ra l Orde r 5.3(a ), no pe titions for re he aring will bee nte rta ine d. 

# FIL ED OCT 11 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* The Honora

ble Ja m e s Ala n Soto, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion.N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT HENR Y TOR R ES SANDOVAL, AKA He nry Flore s, Pe t i tione r, v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-70432 Age n c y No. A076-355-299 AM ENDED M EM OR

ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

12, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : C HR ISTEN an d WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SOTO, ** Distric t Judge . 1. On De c e m

be r 12, 2013, a

n Im m igration Judge(IJ) c onc urre d in a ne gative re a s ona ble fe ar de te rm ination issue d by an Asy lum

Offic e r (AO) a ga inst Pe titione r. Six da

y s la t e r, on De c e m

be r 18, 2013, Pe titione r a p pe a le d to the B oa

rd 

# FIL ED OCT 11 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Ja m e s Ala n Soto, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion.of Im

m igration Appe a l s (B IA). The B IA re c e ive d the a ppe a l on De c e m

be r 26, 2013, a nd se nt a filing notic e the following da y , De c e m be r 27, 2013. The n, on Ja nua ry 29, 2014, the

B IA issue d a

short orde r dism issing Pe titione r’ s a ppe a l ba se d on a la c k of jurisdic tion a c c ording to the gove rning fe d e ra l re gula tions. Pe titione r a ppe a le d tha

t orde r to this C ourt on Fe brua ry 14, 2014. 2. In Ay a la v . Se

ssions , 855 F.3d 1012 (9th C ir. 2017) a nd Martine

z v . Se ssions , 863 F.3d 1155 (9th C ir. 2017), this C o urt de sc ribe d “ whe n re a sona ble fe ar de te rm inations c ha lle nging re insta te d re m ova l orde rs be c o m e a dm inistra tive ly fina l.” Martine

z , 855 F.3d a

t 1159. Thec onc e rns tha t le d the C ourt in those

c a se s to de c ide that the a dm inistra tive proc e e dings be c am e fina l for a ppe lla t e re vie w purpose s whe n the B IA issue d its dismissa l orde r a lso a pply he re . In pa

rtic ula r,

“ [t] he c onste lla

tion of sta tute s, re gula

tions, instruc tions c onta ine d on va rious form s, a n d re sponse s from

the B IA c re a te a

la ndsc a pe tha t is c onfusing a

t be st,” and m ake s a lie ns “ susc e ptible to be ing c a ught in a tra p for the unwa

ry . ” Id. at 1159–60. Pe titione r dilige ntly pursue d his c a s e , filing his a ppe a l with theB IA and his pe tition to this C ourt shortly a fte r the re le v ant orde rs we re issue d. Unde r the se c irc um s ta nc e s , the fina l a dm inistra

tive orde r for re vie wis the a ppe a l from

the B IA; the re fore , the pe tition for re v ie w is tim e ly , a nd we hav e jurisdic tion.

23. The Gove rnm e nt did not c onte st the m e rits of Pe titione r’ s c a se , a nd ha s, the re fore , wa ive d a

ny opposition. Se e C

le m v . Lome l i , 566 F.3d 1177, 1182 (9th C ir. 2009) (holding tha

t a n a ppe lle e who did not addre ss a n a rgum e nt in the answe ring brie f ha d wa ive d tha t issue ). Give n Pe titione r’ s te s tim ony , whic h wa s found c re dible by

both theAO a

nd IJ, the ne g a tive re a sona ble fe a r de te rm ination is re ve rse d. The c a s e is re m ande d to the Im m igrat ion C o urt so tha

t the IJ m ay

give full c onside ra tion to the Pe titione r’ s re que st for withholding or de fe rra l of re m ova l.

RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D .

3