N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GAB R IEL JAR

A-AR ELLANO, Pe titione r,
v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-73779 Age n c y No. A088-881-174
M EM O R 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 arc h

10, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E, M c KEOW N, a nd GOULD, C irc u it Judge s. Ga brie l Ja ra -Are lla no pe titions for re v ie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ s (“ B IA” ) de c ision a ffirm ing a n Im m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de n ia l of his
a pplic a tions for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd C o nve n tion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ) prote c tion. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252. 

# FIL E D
APR 11 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.W e have jurisdic tion ove r Ja ra -Are lla n o’ s pa rtic ula rly se rious c rim e c la im be c a use the B IA de c ide d to a d d re ss it, a s the disse nt a c knowle dge s . Se e K in v
. Holde r , 595 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ [S] inc e the B IA e le c te d to ignore the p roc e dura l de fe c t a

nd c o nside r the argum e nt on its substa ntive m e rits, the
re vie wing c ourt [m ay ] not the n de c line to c onside r the issue .” ); Disse nt a t 11–12. In so doing, the

B IA e nsure d tha

t we would not be

re vie wing this c la im

for the first tim e on a ppe a l. Thus, the

argum e nt is not waive d. In de te rm i ning whe the r one of Ja ra -Are lla no’ s c onvic tions is a

pa rtic ula rly
se rious c rim e ba

rring him from a sy lum and withholding from re m o va l, the B IA
m ust providea

“ c le ar e xpla

n ation” of its de c ision. Se e De lgado v . Holde r , 648 F.3d 1095, 1107

– 0 8 (9th C i r. 2011). He re , howe ve r, the B IA, like the IJ, offe re d only a sta te m e nt of c onc l usion tha

t Ja ra -Are l la no wa s sta

tutorily ine ligiblefor
a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l be c a

use he ha d be e n c o nvic te d of at le a st one pa rtic u la rly se rious c rim e . Se e Shre

stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th C ir. 2010) (sta ting tha t whe re “ t he B IA’ s phra s ing se e m s in pa rt to sugge st tha

t it did
c onduc t a n inde p e nde nt re vie wof the re c ord, but the B IA’ s ana ly s is on the re le va nt issue s is c onfine d

to a s im ple sta te m e nt of a c onc lusion,”we e xam ine “ the IJ’ s ora l de c ision a s a

guide to wha

t la y be hind theB IA’ s c onc l usion.” (inte rna l quota tion
m arks om itte d)). Ne ithe r the IJ nor the B IA provide d a ny re a soning, e xpla

nation, 2or ana ly sis for its c onc lusion. Ye t “ [w] ithout knowing the ba sis of the B oa

rd’ s de c ision, we c annot c onduc t a m e aningful re v ie w . ” De lgado , 648 F.3d a t 1108;
se e a lso Mov

sisian v . Ashc roft , 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th C ir. 2005) (“ W e have long he ld tha

t the B IA a

buse s its disc re tion whe n it fa ils to provide a re a sone d
e xpla nation for its a c tions.” ). Unde rsta nda bly , the B IA and the IJ m ay hav e provide d the se short
c onc lusions be c a

use o f the stipula

tion m a de be fore the IJ by the gove rnm e nt a

nd Ja ra -Are lla no tha t Ja ra -Are lla no ha d c om

m i tte d at le a st one pa

rtic ula rly se rious
c rim e , a lthough the

B IA’ s de c ision m ake s no m e ntion of thestipula tion. Howe ve r, the c la s sific a tion of Ja

ra -Are lla no’ s c onvic tions is a

que stion of la

w tha t we re vie w de novo. Se e C

azare z-Gutie rre

z v . Ashc roft , 382 F.3d 905, 909 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ Whe the r an offe nse is a n a ggravate d fe lony

unde r the INA is a

le ga l que stion subje c t to de novo re v ie w.” ). It is we ll e s ta blishe d tha

t “ [a ] stipula

tion of la w is not binding upon a

n a ppe l late c ourt.” Av ila v . IN S , 731 F.2d 616, 620 (9th C ir. 1984) (c iting Sw ift & C

o. v . Hoc k

ing Valle y Ry . C o. , 243 U.S. 281, 289 (1917), a nd L.A. Shipbuilding &

Dry d oc k C orp. v . Unite d State

s , 289 F.2d 222, 231 (9th C ir. 1961)). B e c a

use we have only the B IA’ s m e re sta te m e nt of c onc lusion, weare le ft without a ba sis for re v ie w i ng its de c ision. De lgado , 648 F.3d a t 1108. W e

3the re fore re m and to theB IA so tha t it c an provide a

c le ar e xpla

nation for its pa rtic u la rly se rious c rim e holding. W e grant the gove rnm e nt’ s re que st for re m and to the B IA so tha t the B IA
c an re c onside r the gove rnm e n t a c quie sc e nc e e l e m e nt of Ja ra -Are l la no’ s C AT
c la im . Upon re m and, the B IA should c onside r a l l re le va n t e vide nc e c onc e rning the

“ e ffic a c y of the [M e xic an] gove rnm e n t’ s e fforts to stop the drug c arte ls’ viole nc e .” Madrigal v . Holde r , 716 F.3d 499, 509 (9th C ir. 2013). W e re je c t Ja ra -Are lla no’ s c la im

tha t unde r the Fifth Am e ndm e nt, the gove rnm e nt m ay

not pla c e him

in ha rm ’ s wa y be c a u se his prior a ssista

nc e to la w
e nforc e m e nt c re a te d a

“ spe c ia l re lationship”be twe e n him and the gove rnm e nt. As Ja ra -Are lla no c onc e de s, none of our c a s e s ha ve e xte nde d this princ iple to the
a sy lum , withholding, a

nd C AT c onte xt. Ea c h pa rty sha ll pa y its own c osts on a

ppe a l. PE T IT IO N G RANT E D in par t; DE NIE D in par t; RE M ANDE D w ith instr uc tions.

4J

ara-Are llano v . Holde r , No. 12-73779 W ALLAC E , C irc uit Judge , c onc urring in pa rt a nd disse n ting in pa

rt: The m a jority doe s thre e things. First, it holds tha t we m ust re m a n d this c a se so tha t the B oa rd “ c an provide a

c le ar e xpla

nat ion for its pa

rtic ula rly se rious c rim e holding.”Se c o nd, it gra

nts the gove rnm e n t’ s re que st for a re m a n d so tha t the B oa rd c an “ re c onside r the gove rnm e nt a c quie sc e nc e e le m e nt of Ja ra -Are lla no’ s C AT c la i m ” in light of our holding in M adrigal v . Holde r , 716 F.3d 499, 509 (9th C ir. 2013). Fina lly , it re

je c ts Ja ra -Are lla no’ s Fifth Am e n dm e nt c la im
. I c onc ur in the se c ond a

n d third. Howe v e r, I disa gre e with thefirst. In holding tha

t we m ust re m and this c a se to the B oa rd for a “ c le ar e xpla

nation” of the pa rtic u la rly se rious c rim e holding, the m a jority m isa

pplie s our pre c e d e nt a

nd ignore s the fa c ts of this c a se . A c orre c t unde rsta nding of our pre c e de nt a

n d those fa c t s, a s disc usse d be low, shows tha t the B oa rd did not e rr an d

tha t the m a jority ’ s de c ision to re m and a s to this issue is m isguide d. Ac c ordingly , I disse n t in pa rt. I. To unde rsta

nd the m a jority ’ s e rror, it is ne c e ssa ry to re vie w the proc e dura l history of this c a se . In 2008, while

Ja ra -Are lla no wa s living in C a l ifornia , he wa s c o nvic te d of two c rim e s. First, he wa s c onvic te d of be i ng a

fe lon in posse s sion of a

fire arm , in viola tion of C a l. Pe na l C ode § 12021(a)(1). Se c ond, he wa s c onvic te d of 

# FIL E D
APR 11 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALSposse s sion for sa le of a c ontrolle d substa

nc e –na m e ly , m e tha

m phe tam i ne –in viola tion of C a l. He a lth & Sa fe ty C ode § 11378. B e c a

use of the se c onvic t ions, Ja ra -Are lla no wa s re m ove d from

the Unite d State s in 2010. A y e ar late r, howe ve r, he re turne d to the Unite d Stat e s a nd re que ste d a sy lum , whic h le d to the se proc e e dings. In he arings be fore the im

m igration judge(IJ), c ounse l for Ja ra -Are lla no stipula te d tha t Ja ra -Are lla n o wa s ine ligiblefor a sy l um or withholding of re

m ova l,
and thus wa s “ only . . . e ligiblefor re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture ,” insofa r a s he ha d c om

m itte d a pa rtic ula rly se rious c rim e . At a

subse que nt he aring, the IJ re i te ra t e d tha

t Ja ra -Are lla no wa s ine ligiblefor a sy lum or withholding of
re m ova l be c a

use he ha d c om

m itte d “ a pa rtic ula rly se rious c rim e .” Aga in, c ounse l for Ja ra -Are lla no stipula te d tha t this wa s c orre c t. In his ora l de c ision, theIJ he ld tha t “ [e ] ithe r one of [Ja

ra -Are lla n o’ s] c rim e s is a pa rtic ula rly se rious c rim e .” Having m a de tha t holding, he

we n t on to sta

te tha t the p artie s ha d “ a gre e d tha t [Ja ra -Are l la no] ha s at le a st one pa

rtic ula rly se rious
c rim e ,” re fe rring to thestipula tion e nte re d into by

c ounse l for Ja

ra -Are lla no. Thus, in light of the

stipula t ion re ga rding the “ pa

rtic u la rly se rious c rim e ” issue , the IJ in his de c ision sta

te d tha t the “ pa rtie s a gre e d tha

t [Ja ra -Are lla no] is not e ligiblefor
a sy lum [or] withholding of rem ova l.” In his a ppe a l to theB oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (B o ard), Ja ra -Are l la nodid not ra ise the pa rtic u la rly se rious c rim e issue . Inste a d, his brie f be fore the B oa rd ide ntifie d e ight diffe re n t wa y s in whic h the IJ ha d a lle g e dly viola t e d his due proc e s s rights. N

one of those e ight pe rta ine d to the IJ’ s c o nc lusion tha t Ja ra Are lla no ha d be e n

c onvic te d of a

pa rtic ula rly se rious c rim e . Inste a d , the y a ll pe rta ine d to a spe c ts of Ja

ra -Are lla n o’ s te s tim ony

re ga rding a shooting inc ide nt in M e x ic o; the tim ing of Ja

ra -Are lla no’ s e ntra n c e into the Unite d

State s ; a nd whe the r the re wa s a

like lihood tha

t Ja ra -Are lla no would betorture d if he we re to be
re turne d to M e xic o. In its own brie f be fore the B oa rd, the gove rnm e nt c o rre c tly obse rve d tha

t “ the pa rtie s . . . stipula

te d tha t [Ja ra -Are lla n o] sta nds c onvic te d of a pa rtic u la rly se rious c rim e .” The B oa rd dism isse d Ja

ra -Are lla no’ s a ppe a l from

the IJ’ s de c ision. In pa rtic u la r, it sta te d the following with re s pe c t to this issue : First, we a ffirm

the [IJ’ s] de te rm i nation tha t [Ja ra -Are lla no] is sta tutorily ine ligiblefor a sy lum

and withholding of re

m ova l . . . be c a

use he ha s be e n c onvic t e d of at le a st one pa rtic ula rly se rious c rim e . . . . [Ja

ra -Are lla no] ha s not c ha lle nge d this spe c i fic finding on a ppe a l
. II. B e fore proc e e d ing to discuss the m a j ority ’ s c o nside ra tion of this c la im , I
sum m ariz e the proc e dura l history de ta ile d a

bove . It is undispute d tha t Ja ra Are lla no wa s c onvic te d

of two c rim e s by

the C a l ifornia

c ourts. It is undispute d
3that

c ounse l for Ja

ra -Are lla no stipula te d to the IJ tha

t Ja ra -Are l la no wa s ine ligible for a s y lum

or withholding of re

m ova l be c a

use he ha d c om

m itte d a pa rtic ula rly
se rious c rim e . In light of tha t stipula tion, the IJ he ld tha

t Ja ra -Are lla no ha d
c om m itte d a pa rtic ula rly se rious c rim e and wa s the re fore ine ligiblefor a s y lum or withholding of rem o v a l. Ja ra -Are lla no did not a

ppe a l tha t holding to the

B oa rd,
and did not rai se any

issue to the B o ard involving e ithe r the pa rtic ula rly se rious
c rim e de te rm ination itse l f or his stipula tion. 1 Ac c ordingly , the B oa rd a ffirm e d the IJ’ s de te rm inat ion tha

t Ja ra -Are lla no wa s ine ligiblefor a s y lum an d withholding of
re m ova l, insofa

r a s he ha d be e n c onvic te d of a pa rtic ula rly se rious c rim e . Give n the s e fa c ts, our holding a s to this issue should ha ve be e n stra ightforwa

rd. Ja ra -Are l la no stipula te d to the fa c t tha

t he ha d c om m itte d a pa rtic u la rly se rious c rim e . The IJ a c c o rdingly rule d tha t he ha d c om m itte d suc h a
c rim e . Ja ra -Are lla no did not a

ppe a l this ruling to the

B oa rd, whic h a c c ordingly
a ffirm e d the IJ’ s de te rm ination. Tha t should ha

ve be e n the e nd of the m atte r. W e
c ould ha v e re je c te d Ja ra -Are lla no’ s a rgum e nt a s to this issue e ithe r be c a use he ha d

1 At no point ha s Ja

ra -Are lla n o atta c k e d the stipula

t ion itse lf. For insta

nc e , he ha s ne ve r c onte nde d tha t he re c e i ve d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of c ounse l with re spe c t to thestipula

tion. As a

ge ne ra l princ iple , suc h a

stipula tion is c om

p le te ly unobje c t iona

ble
. Se e , e .g. , Torre

s-C h av e z v . Holde r , 567 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th C ir. 2009) (e xpla ining tha

t it is “ le g itim ate ” for im

m igrat ion a

ttorne y s to “ c onc e de ” one form of re lie f so a s to “ foc us[] the c ourt’ s atte ntion on a [diffe re nt] ba sis for re lie f” ). 4stipula

te d to it be fore the IJ, or be c a use he fa ile d to ra ise the issue be fore the B oa rd. Inste a d of ta

king e ithe r of the se logic a l c ourse s, the m a jority opts for a

third, but e rrone ous, pa

th. It re lie s on our de c ision in De l gado v . Holde r , 648 F.3d 1095 (9th C ir. 2011), to c onc lude tha t the B oa rd e rre d by

fa iling to provide

a “ c le ar
e xpla nation” of its de c ision. (M e m . Dispo. a t 2.) The m a

jority a s se rts tha

t

“ [n] e ithe r the IJ nor the [B oa rd] provide d a

ny re a s oning, e xpla

nat ion, or a

na ly sis for its c onc lusion.” Thus, them a jority c onc lude s tha

t we “ c annot c onduc t a
m e aningful re vie w” of the B oa rd’ s de c ision, be c a

use we do not “ know[] its ba sis.” The m a jority a c knowle dge s, a s it m

ust, tha t Ja ra -Are lla no stipula te d to having c o m

m itte d a pa rtic u la rly se rious c rim e . Howe ve r, it disre ga rds the stipula tion on the

ba sis of its a s se rtion tha

t the stipula

tion is “not binding”

upon us. ( Id. at 3.) Inste a d, it a sse rts tha t the “ c la ssific at ion of Ja

ra -Are lla no’ s c onvic tions is a que stion of la

w tha t we re vie w de novo.” Eve ry ste p of this re a s oning is e rrone ous. First, the m a j ority ’ s re lia

nc e on De lgado is inc orre c t. B e c a use we do, in fa c t, know theba sis of theB oa rd’ s
c onc lusion, weare pe rfe c t ly c a pa b le of c onduc ting the“ m e aningful re vie w”
re quire d by D e lgado . Se c ond, the m a j ority ’ s re lia

nc e on the fa c t tha

t the stipula tion is “not binding”

upon us is m

isguide d. The que stion is not whe the r we 5are b ound by the stipula

tion, but whe the r the B oa rd e rre d in re ly ing on it. Fina lly , re ga rdle s s of whe the r the B oa rd provide d a

n a de quate e xpla

nation of its re a soning,
and re ga rdle ss of whe the r the stipula tion is binding upon us, the fa c t re m a ins tha

t Ja ra -Are lla no did not raise this issue be fore the B oa

rd. Ac c o rdingly , the argum e n t is wa ive d a

nd he should not be

pe rm i tte d to ra ise it now. I discu ss m y re a sons for
e a c h of the se c o nc lusions be low III. The m a jority ’ s founda

tiona l doc trina l e rror is its misre a ding of De lgado
. Ac c ordingly , I be gin m

y ana ly s is with a

disc ussion of tha

t c a se . In De lgado , we c onside re d the B oa rd’ s de te rm inat ion tha

t a pe t itione r ha d be e n c o nvic te d of a

pa rtic u l arly se rious c rim e , whic h would ha ve ba rre d him from
e ligibility for a sy lum

and withholding of re

m ova l. 648 F.3d a

t 1107. W e
e xpla ine d tha

t the B oa rd’ s “ de c isionm aking is governe d by m inim um proc e dura l
re quire m e nts,” and tha

t “ [d] ue proc e ss a

nd this c o urt’ s pre c e de nt re quire a
m inim um de gre e of c l arity

in dispositive

re a soning a

nd in thetre atm e nt of a prope rly ra ise d a rgum e nt.” Id. (c ita

tion omitte d ). In light of the se princ iple s, we he ld tha t the B oa rd ha d fa ile d to providea suffic i e ntly

“ c le a r e xpla nation” of its de te rm ination tha t the pe titione r ha d
c om m itte d a pa rtic ula rly se rious c rim e . Id. at 1107–08. In pa rtic ula r, we 6e xpla ine d tha t the IJ ha d “ re lie d

on two inde

pe nde nt ba s e s for its ruling” that the pe titione r ha d be e n

c onvic te d of a

pa rtic ula rly se rious c rim e . Id. at 1108 n.18. The B oa rd’ s de c ision, howe ve r, wa s “ unc le ar a bout whic h of the IJ’ s a lte rnative
ra tiona le s it inte n d e d to a dopt.” Id. Thus, we c onc l ude d tha t we c ould not

“ a s c e rta in whic h of the IJ’ s rationa le s the [B oa rd] inte nde d to a d opt, if a ny .” Id. B e c a use of this “ am

biguity , ” we sta

te d tha t we we re una

ble to “ unde rsta

nd[] the [B oa rd’ s] re a soning,” whic h in turn m e ant tha t we we re una

ble to “ d isc e rn[] the
e xte nt to whic h the [B oa

rd] a gre e d with a

nd [wa s] supporte d by

the IJ’ s a na ly sis,
a ssum ing the [B o a

rd] inte nde d to a dopt theIJ’ s re a soning.” Id. at 1108. Thus, we
re m ande d to the B oa

rd so it c ould re solve this “ a m biguity ” and provide us a “ c le ar
e xpla nation” of whic h, “ if a

ny , ” of the IJ’ s a l te rnat ive ra tiona le s it inte nde d to
a dopt. Id. In this c a se , by

c ontra st, no suc h “ am

biguity ” e x i sts. As is pointe d out
a bove , the B oa

rd e xpre ssly sta

t e d tha t it “ a ffirm [e d ] the [IJ’ s] de te rm ination tha t [Jara -Are lla

no] is sta tutorily ine ligiblefor a sy lum

and withholding of re

m ova l . . . be c a use he ha s be e n c onvic te d of at le a st one pa

rtic ula rly se rious c rim e .” Thus, unlike in De lgado , we know tha t the B oa rd una m biguously “ inte nde d to a dopt the IJ’ s re a soning.” De lgado , 648 F.3d a t 1108. M ore ove r, we know tha t the IJ
e xpre s sly he ld tha t “ [e ] ithe r one of [Ja

ra -Are lla no’ s] c rim e s is a

pa rtic ula rly 7se rious c rim e .” Thus, the re is no a m biguity in this c a se . The IJ he ld tha t e ithe r of Ja ra -Are lla no’ s two c rim e s wa s “ pa

rtic ula rly se rious,” an d the B oa

rd a ffirm e d tha

t de c ision. No further c l arific ation from the B oa rd is re quire d. IV. The m a jority ’ s m isre a ding of D e lgado only ge ts it pa rt of the wa

y to the holding tha

t it re a c he s. To re a c h its c onc l usion–i.e ., tha t we m ust re m and to the B oa rd–the m a jority m ust do som e thing with the fa c t tha t Ja ra -Are lla no stipula te d to this issue

be fore the IJ. The m a jority be gins its c onside ra tion of thestipula tion by sta ting tha t the

“ c l a ssific a tion of Ja

ra -Are lla no’ s c onvic tions is a

que stion of la

w tha t we re vie w de novo.” (M e m . Dispo. a

t 3.) For this proposition, the m a jority c i te s C azarezGutie r re z v . Ashc roft , 382 F.3d 905, 909 (9th C ir. 2004), whic h doe s inde e d sta te that the B oa rd’ s “ de te rm inat ion of pure ly le ga l que stions is re v ie we d de novo” and that “ [w] h e the r an offe nse is a n a ggravate d fe lony

unde r the [Imm igration a nd Nationa l ity

Ac t ] is a le g a l que stion subje c t to de novo re vie w.” Id. (c ita t ions
om i tte d). Howe ve r, in C

azare z -Gutie rre

z the re wa s no stipula

tion. Inste a d, the B oa rd ha d he ld tha

t a c onvic tion for posse ssion of m e tha m phe tam ine is a

n

“ a g gravate d fe l ony ” unde r the re le va nt sta tute . Id. at 908. Thus, C azare z-Gutie rre

z itse lf only

sta n ds for the proposition tha t whe the r 8an offe nse is a n “ a ggravate d fe l ony ” is a que stion of la

w, a nd thus subje c t to de
novo re vie w. C

azare z-Gutie rre

z sa y s nothing a

b out wha t to m ake of the B oa

rd’ s
re vie w of a

stipula tion e nte re d into be fore the IJ re ga rding suc h

a fe lony
. The re fore , the c rux of the issue is the m a jority ’ s ne xt se nte nc e , whic h sta t e s tha t it

“ is we l l e sta

blishe d tha

t ‘ [a ] stipula

tion of la w is not binding upon a

n a p pe lla te
c ourt.’ ” (M e m . Dispo. a

t 3, c iting Av ila v . IN

S , 731 F.2d 616, 620 (9th C ir. 1984).) It is true tha

t Av i la holds tha

t a “ s tipula tion of la wis not binding upon a

n
a ppe lla te c o urt.” A v ila , 731 F.2d a t 620. As wee xpla ine d in Av ila , this is be c a use of this c o urt’ s “ longsta

nding polic y ” tha

t the re is “ no re a son why

[this c ourt] should m ake what

we think would be

an e rrone ous de c i sion, be c a use the a pplic a ble la w wa s not insiste d

upon by one of the pa

rtie s.” Id. at 620–21 (c ita t ion om itte d). Av ila is distinguisha

ble . As pointe d out a

b ove , Av ila sta

nds for the proposition tha

t a ny “ stipula tion of la w ” m a de by

the pa rtie s is not “

b inding” upon this c ourt. Id. at

620. This me ans e xa c tly what it sa

y s: i.e ., tha

t this c ourt is not bound by whate v e r stipula

tion thepa

rtie s m a de a s to the pa

rtic ula rly se rious c rim e issue be fore the IJ. Thus, if wewe re of the vie w tha t ne ithe r of Ja

ra -Are lla no’ s fe lonie s we re in fa c t “ pa

rtic u la rly se rious c rim e s,” it would be possiblefor us to disre ga rd the stipula

tion a nd hold a s m

uc h. To put it a

nothe r way , Av ila holds tha t this c ourt ha s the disc re tion to disre ga rd stipula tions a s to a

m atte r of la

w. Se e , 9e .g. , Hill v . K oon , 977 F.2d 589, *2 n.1 (9th C ir. 1992) (unpub.) (re c ogniz ing tha t the p artie s ha d stipula

te d to a c e rta i n le g a l issue be fore the distric t c ourt, but following Av ila and sta

ting tha t the c ourt “ c ho[] se not to a pply the pa rtie s’ stipula tion in this c a se ” in light of Ninth C i rc u it pre c e de nt a s to tha t le ga l issue ). It is im porta n t to re c ogniz e , howe ve r, tha t Av ila doe s not hold a

nything m ore tha n this. Theque stion be fore our pa n e l is not whe the r we are bound by the pa rtie s ’ stipula

t i on tha t e ithe r of Ja

ra -Are lla no’ s c rim e s wa s a

“ pa rtic ula rly se rious
c rim e .” Aga in, if

we we re to c onc lude tha

t ne ithe r of those c rim e s we re

“ pa rtic ula rly se rious,” we would be at libe rty to hold a s m

uc h, notwithsta

nding the pa rtie s ’ stipula

t i on be fore the IJ. B ut tha t is not the

que stion be fore us. Inste a d, the q ue stion is whe the r the B o ard e rre d, unde r De lgado , by fa iling to provide

a suffic i e ntly

“ c le a r e xpla nation” of its de c ision. Se e ing tha t the se are two e ntire ly diffe re nt que stions pla c e s the pa rtie s’ stipula

t ion in theprope r c onte xt. B e c a use of the s tipula

tion, the re wa s sim

p l y no re a son in this c a se for the B oa rd to providea
m ore e la borate “ e xp la

nation” of its de c ision re ga rding this issue . The pa

rtie s we re in a g re e m e n t a s to this issue , whic h m e ant tha t the re wa s nothing further for the B oa rd to disc uss a s to this issue
. The m a jority ’ s holding to the

c ontra ry c re at e s a

pe rve rse inc e ntive . B y
c hoosing to disre ga

rd the pa rtie s’ stipula

tion, them a

jority is a ble to a rrive at its 1 0c onc lusion tha t the B oa rd e rre d by

fa iling to provide a

suffic ie ntly

re a sone d
e xpla nation of its de c ision. B ut I fa il to se e how the B oa rd c an be fa

ulte d for fa iling to provide

a re a sone d e xpla

nation of a

c onc lusion to which both side s ha d
a lre a dy stipula

t e d. Inde e d, the logic of Ja ra -Are lla no’ s a rgum e nt he re , if followe d to its c onc lusion, would e nc oura ge pe titione rs to “pla y possum ” be fore the B oa

rd by stipula ting to c e rta in issue s. Ha ving lulle d the B oa

rd into a c c e p ting those stipula tions a nd not fully

ana ly z ing the issue , the pe titione r c ould the n a rgue be fore this c ourt tha

t the B oa rd ha d fa i le d to “ satisfy its obliga tion” to providea

re a sone d
e xpla nation for its a c tion–notwithsta n ding thepe titione r’ s own stipula tion to the issue be fore the B oa

rd–a nd the re by

se c ure a re m and. V. Although the m a

jority e rrs in its re lia

nc e on the c a s e s disc usse d a bove , the
m ore funda

m e nta l e rror m a de by

the m a jority lie s in re a c hing this issue in the first pla c e . W e ne e d ne ve r have c onside re d whe the r the B oa

rd e rre d unde r De lgado by fa iling to provide

a suffic i e ntly

c le ar e xpla

nation of its re a soning, or whe t he r the stipula tion is binding upon us, for the sim ple re a son tha

t Ja ra -Are lla no ne ve r ra ise d this issue be fore the B oa

rd. As suc h, it wa s wa ive d
. In c onside ring this issue , it is im porta nt to m ak e a

thre s hold distinc tion. I
am not a rguing tha

t we la c k jurisdic tion ove r this issue . B e c a use the B oa

rd c hose 1 1to a d dre ss the issue , we have jurisdic tion to c onside r it. Se e K in v . Holde r , 595 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th C ir. 2010) (e xpla ining tha t whe re the B oa

rd “ e le c te d to ignore [a ] proc e d

ura l de fe c t a

nd c onside r [an] argum e nt on its substa ntive m e rits,” the “ polic y

c onc e rns unde rly ing the re quire m e nt of a llowing a n a ge nc y full opportunity

to re solve a c o n trove rsy

or c orre c t its e rrors be fore judic ia l inte rve ntion ha

ve be e n fulfille d,” whic h in turn m e an s tha t this c ourt “ c an prope rly
e xe rc ise jurisdic tion” ). Howe v e r, the fa c t tha

t we have jurisdic tion ove r the issue doe s not m e an tha t Ja ra -Are lla no should be

pe rm itte d to ra ise this a

rgum e n t re ga

rding it. In m

y vie w, be c a use Ja ra -Are lla n o fa ile d to ra ise this issue in his brie f be fore the B oa rd, he ha s
wa ive d it a

nd m ay not ra ise it on a

ppe a l. This is a

we ll-e sta blishe d princ i ple of
a ppe lla te pra c tic e . Se e

, e .g. , Unite d State

s v . C arlson , 900 F.2d 1346, 1349 (9th C ir. 1990) (e xpla ining tha t “ [o] ur ge ne ra l rule is tha t we will not c onside r issue s
ra ise d for the first tim e on a ppe a l” ) (c ita

tions omitte d). B e c a

use Ja ra -Are lla no stipula te d to this issue

be fore the IJ, a

nd be c a use he did not ra ise the issue be fore the B oa rd, we should not c onside r it now “ for the first tim e on a ppe a l.” Id. VI. In sum , I disse nt from

the m a jority ’ s holding tha

t we m ust re m and this c a se to the B o ard for a

“ c le ar e xpla

nation” of the pa

rtic u la rly se rious c rim e holding. 1 2