IOANNIS LOUKAS, AKA Jean Kabolis, AKA John Loukas v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IOANNIS LOUKAS, AKA Jean Kabolis,
AKA John Loukas,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73363
Agency No. A031-013-540
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted June 13, 2018
Seattle, Washington
Before: GOULD and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and ROTHSTEIN,** District
Judge.
Ioannis Loukas, a native and citizen of Greece, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ dismissal of his appeal from an immigration
FILED
JUN 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The Honorable Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, United States District Judge
for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Page 2 of 3
judge’s negative reasonable fear determination. We grant the petition for review
and remand for further proceedings.
Contrary to the government’s contention, we have jurisdiction over Loukas’
petition for review. Like the petitioner in Martinez v. Sessions, 873 F.3d 655 (9th
Cir. 2017), Loukas was unaware that he needed to file a petition for review directly
in our court, rather than taking an administrative appeal to the BIA. Nothing in the
final order entered by the immigration judge (IJ) adequately clarified the process
by which further appellate review of the IJ’s ruling could be obtained. Because
Loukas was proceeding pro se when he attempted to seek appellate review of the
IJ’s order, his case is squarely governed by Martinez’s holding. We therefore treat
the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal as the final order of removal. See id. at 660.
Loukas timely petitioned for review of that order within the jurisdictionally
mandated 30 days.
In his petition for review, Loukas contends that the IJ violated his due
process rights in two respects: by failing to provide a reasoned explanation for
rejecting Loukas’ claim that he feared persecution or torture; and by improperly
denying him a full and fair opportunity to present testimony in support of his
claim. The government’s brief does not meaningfully address the merits of these
contentions, so we deem any opposition to them waived. As in Martinez, we

-- 2 of 3 --

Page 3 of 3
vacate the IJ’s order upholding the asylum officer’s negative reasonable fear
determination, and we remand this case to the IJ for further consideration in
accordance with this disposition. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; CASE REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --