Shafiq Yab Rana v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1548
SHAFIQ YAB RANA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: March 4, 2022 Decided: March 15, 2022
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Petition for review granted by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Marc Seguinót, SEGUINÓT & ASSOCIATES, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant
Director, Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Andrew N. O’Malley, Senior
Litigation Counsel, Sunah Lee, Senior Trial Attorney, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION
LITIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Shafiq Yab Rana, a native and citizen of Pakistan, petitions for review of the order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for adjustment of status and
cancellation of removal. We directed the parties to submit supplemental briefing on the
application of the rule announced in Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021)
(holding that stop-time rule codified in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1) is triggered only when
noncitizen is served with a single document containing all information about the
noncitizen’s removal hearing specified in 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1)), to Rana’s eligibility for
cancellation of removal. The parties agree that the case should be remanded to the Board
for further consideration of Rana’s eligibility for cancellation of removal in light of this
intervening decision.
Having independently reviewed the record, we agree with the parties that this case
should be remanded to the Board so that it may consider in the first instance whether Rana
is eligible for cancellation of removal after Niz-Chavez. Given this disposition, we decline
to address Rana’s remaining two issues.*
We therefore grant Rana’s petition for review and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
* If the Board again denies Rana relief on remand, Rana may repursue all of his
issues in a petition for review from that decision, should he so choose.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED

-- 3 of 3 --