Mario Ramirez-Zarco v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO RAMIREZ-ZARCO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72973
Agency No. A092-881-356
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Mario Ramirez-Zarco, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
JAN 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
11-72973

-- 1 of 2 --

§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We grant the petition for review and remand. We
Ramirez-Zarco indicated during his removal hearing that his family
members could provide evidence to corroborate his claims regarding the date of his
entry into the United States and continuous residence, but was not given an
opportunity to do so. In concluding that the IJ was not required to continue
proceedings to obtain such evidence, the BIA failed to apply the framework
articulated in Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011), and erred in not
providing Ramirez-Zarco an opportunity to provide corroboration. See id. at 1091-
92 (“[A credible] applicant must be given notice of the corroboration required, and
an opportunity to either provide that corroboration or explain why he cannot do
so.”). We therefore remand for further proceedings consistent with this
disposition.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
11-72973 2

-- 2 of 2 --