Henry Benavides-Jimenez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

HENRY BENAVIDES-JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND
NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 91-70109 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
January 11, 1993, ** Submitted, San Francisco, California ** The panel finds this case appropriate for submission
without argument pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth
Circuit Rule 34-4.
May 10, 1993, Filed

Subsequent History: Reported as Table Case at: 993 F.2d 881.

Prior History:

Petition to Review a Decision of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. INS No. A27-624-387

Disposition:

REVERSED and REMANDED.

Judges:

Before: SCHROEDER and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges, and KING, *** District Judge. *** Honorable Samuel P. King, Senior U.S. District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.

Opinion:

MEMORANDUM Petitioner Henry Benavides-Jimenez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") dismissal of his application for asylum. The BIA took administrative notice of the change of government in Nicaragua and concluded that petitioner therefore had no well-founded fear of persecution from the Sandinistas. We recently held that the BIA may not take administrative notice on this issue without giving petitioner adequate warning and an opportunity to be heard. Castillo-Villagra v. I.N.S., 972 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir. 1992). We must reach the same result here. We also reverse and remand the BIA's denial of petitioner's claim of past persecution. The BIA's decision in this regard runs afoul of this circuit's prohibition of "boilerplate opinions." Castillo v. I.N.S., 951 F.2d 1117 (9th Cir. 1991). In Castillo we held that the BIA's opinion "must state with sufficient particularity and clarity the reasons for denial of asylum." Id. at 1121. A review of the record in this case (and others that accompany it) demonstrates that the BIA failed to abide by Castillo's mandate. REVERSED and REMANDED.
Comments:
Submitted: 11 January, 1993; Filed: 10 May, 1993 The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without argument pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4
Disclaimer:

This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.