Case Name: Khalid UMER, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-06
Citations: 463 F. App'x 429
Docket Number: No. 10-60342
Parties: Khalid UMER, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 463
Pages: 429–430

Head Matter:
Khalid UMER, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-60342
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 6, 2012.
Angelique Marie Montano, Fosterquan, L.L.P., Houston, TX, Raed Gonzalez, Esq., Senior Attorney, Garza & Associates, Bel-laire, TX, for Petitioner.
Anthony Paul Nicastro, Esq., Trial Attorney, Tangerlia Cox, Karen Y. Stewart, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
PER CURIAM:
On January 9, 2012, the Supreme Court vacated this court's judgment entered on March 11, 2011, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Judulang v. Holder, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 476, 181 L.Ed.2d 449 (2011). In Judulang the Court considered the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) "comparable-grounds" rule for determining whether to summarily deny deportable aliens' applications for discretionary waivers under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Court held that the comparable-grounds rule is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Judulang, 132 S.Ct. at 479. In this case, the BIA relied on the comparable-grounds rule in denying Petitioner Khalid Umer individual consideration of his § 212(c) application. Judu-lang does not require the BIA to give individual consideration to every § 212(c) application filed by a deportable alien who is otherwise eligible to seek § 212(c) relief. The Supreme Court explained that "[i]n rejecting th[e] rule, we do not preclude the BIA from trying to devise another, equally economical policy respecting eligibility for § 212(c) relief, so long as it comports with everything held in both this decision and St. Cyr." Id. at 490. Accordingly, it suffices to send this case back to the BIA to reconsider its decision regarding whether Umer's application should be considered on its individual merits.
We GRANT Umer's petition for review, VACATE the BIA's judgment, and REMAND the case to the BIA for reconsideration in light of Judulang.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (1994).