Maria Guerrero Cuevas; v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA GUERRERO CUEVAS; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-73327
Agency Nos. A202-033-396
A202-033-397
A202-033-398
A202-033-399
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2019**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Maria Guerrero Cuevas, and her three children, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
* 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
NOV 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-73327
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings.
Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We grant the petition for
review and remand.
Petitioners contend the BIA erred in its determination that the IJ did not
violate their right to due process. Specifically, petitioners assert that the IJ failed
to fully develop the record, and failed to adequately explain the immigration
hearing procedures and what petitioners were required to prove in order to
establish their eligibility for relief. We agree. See Agyeman v. INS, 296 F.3d 871,
877 (9th Cir. 2002) (due process violation where IJ failed to adequately explain to
pro se applicant the hearing procedures and what the applicant had to prove in
order to support his claims); Jacinto v. INS, 208 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2000)
(immigration judges are obligated to fully develop the record where applicants
appear without counsel). 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).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining
contentions regarding the agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-73327
CAT.
The government must bear the costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --