Ana Maria Lanza v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General

Petitioner Ana Maria Lanza (“Lanza”), a native of Argentina, seeks review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA” or the “Board”) denying her petitions for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CAT”). An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found that Lanza’s asylum application was untimely and that Lanza did not establish extraordinary circumstances to excuse that untimeliness. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(2)(B), (D) (2000). As an alternative finding, the IJ denied Lanza’s asylum claim on the merits. Finally, he denied Lanza’s petitions for withholding of removal and CAT relief. Lanza appealed, and the BIA affirmed without opinion pursuant to its streamlining regulations. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1 (e)(4) (2004).

When the BIA streamlines and affirms without opinion, it endorses the result but not necessarily the reasoning of the IJ. Id. § 1003.1(e)(4)(ii). In Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir.2003), we held that even though streamlining conceals the reasons for the BIA’s decision, this circumstance does not compromise our ability to…

389 F.3d 917 Ana Maria LANZA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 02-73538. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted February 6, 2004. Filed November 22, 2004. 1 Daniel M. Kowalski, Austin, TX, for the petitioner. 2 Peter D. Keisler and Linda S. Wendtland, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for the respondent. 3 On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. Aoa-aic-alk. 4 Before: GOULD, PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and SILVER, * District Judge. 5 SILVER, District Judge. 6 Petitioner Ana Maria Lanza ("Lanza"), a native of Argentina, seeks review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the "BIA" or the "Board") denying her petitions for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("CAT"). An Immigration Judge ("IJ") found that Lanza's asylum application was untimely and that Lanza did not establish extraordinary circumstances to excuse that untimeliness. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (a)(2)(B), (D) (2000). As an alternative finding, the IJ…

concurring and dissenting:

I concur in the majority’s decision to remand Lanza’s asylum claim, because it is impossible to discern whether the BIA’s final order dismissing Lanza’s appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision was based on untimeliness, and therefore outside of our jurisdiction, or based on the merits of her claim and suitable for review. I agree, in this procedural context, that we should remand to the BIA to specify the *937 basis for its decision so that we may deters mine whether we have jurisdiction over Lanza’s asylum claim.

I respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s decision to reach the merits of Lanza’s withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) claims. Because the asylum- and withholding claims are factually interrelated and,because, in my view, it is best to avoid piecemeal resolution of Lanza’s several claims, I would remand all of her claims to the BIA.

Our jurisdiction to determine whether we have jurisdiction in a particular case is well-established and provides a sufficient basis for our remand order. See, e.g., United States v. Ventre, 338 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir.2003). A determination of whether we have jurisdiction…