813 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 2016), 14-60546, Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch

Docket Nº:14-60546
Citation:813 F.3d 240
Opinion Judge:LESLIE H. SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judge.
Party Name:FANY JACKELINE RAMIREZ-MEJIA, also known as Fany Ramirez, also known as Fany Ramirez de Quinteros, Petitioner v. LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent
Attorney:For Fany Jackeline Ramirez-Mejia, also known as: Fany Ramirez, also known as: Fany Ramirez de Quinteros, Petitioner: Andrea Lauren Penedo, Foster, L.L.P., Houston, TX; Alexandre I. Afanassiev, Esq., Quan Law Group, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX. For Loretta Lynch, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent: Carme...
Judge Panel:Before WIENER, SOUTHWICK, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:February 11, 2016
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 240

813 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 2016)

FANY JACKELINE RAMIREZ-MEJIA, also known as Fany Ramirez, also known as Fany Ramirez de Quinteros, Petitioner

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent

No. 14-60546

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

February 11, 2016

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

For Fany Jackeline Ramirez-Mejia, also known as: Fany Ramirez, also known as: Fany Ramirez de Quinteros, Petitioner: Andrea Lauren Penedo, Foster, L.L.P., Houston, TX; Alexandre I. Afanassiev, Esq., Quan Law Group, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX.

For Loretta Lynch, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent: Carmel Morgan, Esq., Trial Attorney, Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC.

Before WIENER, SOUTHWICK, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

LESLIE H. SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judge.

Fany Jackeline Ramirez-Mejia petitioned for rehearing en banc of our July 21, 2015 decision. No member of the panel or judge in regular active service requested that the court be polled. Thus, the petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. See Fed. R. App. P. 35; 5th Cir. R. 35.

Our panel decision details the facts in this case. See Ramirez-Mejia v. Lynch, 794 F.3d 485, 487-89 (5th Cir. 2015). Ramirez-Mejia's petition for rehearing en banc re-urges the same issues she raised in her appellate briefing. We address the question of asylum again in light of the petition.

Ramirez-Mejia contends this court erroneously held " that aliens whose removal orders are reinstated may not apply for asylum." Id. at 491. By statute, any alien whose removal order has been reinstated " may not apply for any relief under this

Page 241

chapter." 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5). It is obvious that Congress wanted illegal reentry to have serious consequences. We held that in light of the statute, asylum is unavailable for an alien like Ramirez-Mejia. That is not to say Ramirez-Mejia, and similarly situated aliens, are defenseless. She still has a right to seek withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture (" CAT" ). She did so in this case.

We acknowledge that asylum is distinct from withholding of removal and CAT protection. Indeed, asylum may be the easiest of the three to justify. To qualify for asylum, an alien must present evidence of past...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP