Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Garcia-Milian v. Holder

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

September 18, 2013

Lydia Garcia-Milian, Petitioner,
v.
Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

Argued and Submitted May 9, 2013 —Pasadena, California

Amended February 13, 2014

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Agency No. A096-180-239

COUNSEL

Joubin P. Nasseri, Nasseri Law Group, Los Angeles, California, for Petitioner.

Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Emily Anne Radford, Assistant Director, Nicole Murley and Jesse L. Busen (argued), Trial Attorneys, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before: Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Richard A. Paez, and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY[*]

Immigration

The panel replaced its prior opinion and concurrence and dissent, filed on September 18, 2013, and published at 730 F.3d 996, with an amended opinion and amended concurrence and dissent, denied a petition for panel rehearing, denied a petition for rehearing en banc on behalf of the court, and ordered that no further petitions shall be entertained.

In the amended opinion, the panel denied a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision denying asylum and withholding of removal to a native and citizen of Guatemala because the evidence did not compel the conclusion that petitioner was persecuted on account of her imputed political opinion. The panel further held that the evidence did not compel the conclusion that petitioner was attacked with the acquiescence of the Guatemalan government for purposes of CAT relief.

Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Paez agreed with the majority that the Board did not err in denying petitioner's CAT claim, but wrote that the evidence in the record compelled the conclusion that petitioner was attacked and raped because of her ex-husband's political opinions.

ORDER

The opinion and dissent filed on September 18, 2013 are amended. The superseding amended opinion and dissent will be filed concurrently with this order.

With these amendments, a majority of the panel has voted to deny petitioner's petition for panel rehearing and her petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Paez voted to grant the petitions. The petition for rehearing en banc was circulated to the judges of the court, and no vote for rehearing en banc was taken. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.