Court Opinion

ID: 9909993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 18:01:00.173598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:31.471180
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         DEC 14 2023
                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAVID LEDESMA RAMIREZ,                          No. 22-1880
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A087-967-511
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM *       0F

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                           Submitted December 11, 2023 **1F

                              San Francisco, California

Before: GOULD, KOH, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

      David Ledesma Ramirez, a citizen of Mexico, petitions this court for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the immigration

judge’s (“IJ”) denial of withholding of removal. On appeal to the BIA, Mr. Ramirez

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
argued that the IJ erred by finding no nexus between his alleged fear of persecution

and a protected ground. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, finding no clear error.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition and remand for

proceedings consistent with this disposition.

      We review whether the BIA applied the correct standard of review de novo.

Soto-Soto v. Garland, 1 F.4th 655, 659 (9th Cir. 2021). The BIA concluded that the

IJ’s nexus determination was not clearly erroneous and that Mr. Ramirez failed to

meet his burden of proof for withholding of removal. But following the BIA’s

decision and the briefing in this case, this court held that the BIA must review the

IJ’s ultimate nexus determination de novo. 1 Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th
                                               2F

544, 552–53 (9th Cir. 2023). Like in Umana-Escobar, the BIA’s decision here

provides “insufficient indication . . . that the BIA’s clear error review pertained to

the IJ’s factual determinations relating to the lack of persecutory motive, as opposed

to the ultimate nexus determination.” Id. Thus, remand is required so the BIA can

apply the proper standard of review. Id.

      The petition is GRANTED AND REMANDED.2

1
       We can exercise discretion to consider this issue even if it was forfeited. See
United States v. Carlson, 900 F.2d 1346, 1349 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding courts may
consider waived issue that “arises while the appeal is pending because of a change
in the law”); Wong v. Flynn-Kerper, 999 F.3d at 1214 n.11 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding
courts may consider waived issue that is pure question of law).
2
       The parties shall bear their own costs.

                                           2                                22-1880