Yenny Silva-Isais De Ramirez v. William Barr ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 11 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    YENNY MARITZA SILVA-ISAIS DE                    No.    15-73384
    RAMIREZ, AKA Jenny Marissa Silva
    Ramirez, AKA Yenny Mariza Silva-Isais de        Agency No.        A075-749-110
    Ramirez,
    Petitioner,
    MEMORANDUM*
    v.
    WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted September 8, 2020**
    Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    Yenny Maritza Silva-Isais de Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico,
    petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order granting
    her motion to reopen for the purpose of reinstating her voluntary departure period.
    *
    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).
    We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the
    BIA’s decision on the motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law. See
    Bonilla v. Lynch, 
    840 F.3d 575
    , 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We grant the petition for
    review.
    The BIA erred and abused its discretion by not treating Silva’s motion as a
    motion to reopen and remand to apply for adjustment of status, and by instead
    reinstating the voluntary departure period, which Silva did not request. See
    Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 
    405 F.3d 1035
    , 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (“IJs and the BIA are
    not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner”); Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 
    395 F.3d 1095
    , 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The BIA abuses its discretion when it acts
    ‘arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to the law.’” (citation omitted)). We remand
    for the BIA to consider whether to reopen to allow Silva to apply for adjustment
    status.
    Silva’s removal is stayed pending a decision by the BIA.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
    2                                   15-73384
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-73384

Filed Date: 9/11/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/11/2020