Shafiq Rana v. Merrick Garland

UNPUBLISHED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Petition for review granted by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED