LATOYA SHERINA ARIS, AKA Jeans Blair v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LATOYA SHERINA ARIS, AKA Jeans
Blair,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-71032
Agency No. A079-407-252
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Latoya Sherina Aris, a native and citizen of Jamaica, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review de novo
* 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).
FILED
AUG 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-71032
legal conclusions and review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017). We grant the
petition for review, and we remand.
In denying withholding of removal and CAT relief, the agency relied on
determinations that Aris’ fears were speculative. However, in making these
determinations, the agency did not address the evidence of death threats that were
made in 2017 on account of Aris’ perceived sexuality. See Cole v. Holder, 659
F.3d 762, 771-72 (9th Cir. 2011) (CAT claim remanded, in part, on account of the
agency’s failure to properly consider all relevant evidence, where indications of
that failure “include misstating the record”); Bromfield v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1071,
1076-79 (9th Cir. 2008) (withholding of removal claim remanded, in part, due to
the IJ’s misinterpretation of record evidence); Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d
1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (the agency is “not free to ignore arguments raised by a
petitioner.”). Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand to the agency for
further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S.
12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
Aris’ removal is stayed pending a decision by the BIA.
The government must bear the costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --