Edmundo Evan-Sanguino v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDMUNDO EVAN-SANGUINO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72980
Agency No. A078-739-220
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 5, 2015
Portland, Oregon
Before: KOZINSKI, BERZON and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
1. This case is REMANDED to the Board of Immigration Appeals for
further proceedings in light of Correo-Ruiz v. Lynch, 809 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 2015).
The Board shall grant Petitioner an opportunity to supplement the record.
FILED
FEB 11 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 2 --

page 2
2. We reject Evan-Sanguino’s argument that the Board denied relief in
derogation of the law of the case. See Merritt v. Mackey, 932 F.2d 1317, 1320
(9th Cir. 1991) (explaining the law-of-the-case doctrine and discussing its
discretionary nature). There was no law of the case because neither our remand
order nor the first Board decision definitively established that Evan-Sanguino was
entitled to relief.
3. We also reject Evan-Sanguino’s argument that the Board deprived him of
due process by deciding his appeal based on the intervening authority of Matter of
Briones, 24 I. & N. Dec. 355 (BIA 2007), without allowing him to brief the
implications of that case. Even if there were a procedural problem, Evan-Sanguino
cannot make the required showing of prejudice. See United States v. Cerda-Pena,
799 F.2d 1374, 1378–79 (9th Cir. 1986). Evan-Sanguino complains that he was
never afforded an opportunity to argue that Briones should not apply retroactively
in his case. Evan-Sanguino will have an opportunity to make that argument on
remand.
Petition for review GRANTED. REMANDED with instructions.

-- 2 of 2 --