Abdule

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Shukri Warsame Abdule (“Abdule”), a native and citizen of Somalia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision, affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Abdule argues that the IJ violated her due process rights by admitting certain evidence proffered by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), by denying her motion for continuance, and by depriving her of the opportunity to cross-examine the preparer of the INS’ evidence. We do not address these questions because we reverse on the grounds that the BIA’s failure to consider the merits of Abdule’s claims deprived her of a full and fair hearing.

I.

A. Factual Background

Abdule is a member of the Marehan subclan of the Darood clan, whose members have suffered violence at the hands of the dominant Hawiye clan. On January 10, 1991, approximately twenty Hawiye clansmen belonging to the United Somalia Congress militia entered her home, killing her father and brother and raping her older sister. During the attack, Abdule was beaten on the head and stomach, and…

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent because the majority decides this case on a ground that was neither raised nor briefed. Appellant argues primarily that the agency erred in admitting Exhibit 16, a letter from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, because it was inadmissible hearsay, as to which the author could not be cross-examined, and lacked proper authentication. Second, Appellant argues that the immigration judge improperly refused a continuance to rebut Exhibit 16. Neither of those arguments fairly encompasses or suggests the ground on which the majority relies.

Our usual rule is that we do not “consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in appellant’s opening brief.” Int’l Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsman Local Union No. 20 v. Martin Jaska, Inc., 752 F.2d 1401, 1404 (9th Cir.1985). I would apply our usual rule and deny the petition, because Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. For that reason, I dissent.