Case Summary
**Case Summary: Jimenez v. Holder, Docket No. 7847728**
**Court:** United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
**Date:** [Please insert the relevant date of the decision]
**Judges:** [Please insert the names of the judges involved]
**Overview:**
Jimenez v. Holder is a case concerning immigration law, where the petitioner, Jorge Jimenez, challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision regarding his application for relief from removal.
**Facts:**
Jorge Jimenez, a native and citizen of [country], was ordered to be removed from the United States after being found in violation of immigration laws. Jimenez applied for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), arguing that if returned to his home country, he would face persecution due to [specific reasons related to his case, e.g., political opinions, membership in a particular social group, etc.].
**Procedural History:**
Jimenez's application for relief was initially denied by an Immigration Judge (IJ), who found that he did not demonstrate a likelihood of persecution or torture upon his return to [country]. Jimenez then appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ's decision without issuing a significant elaboration on the evidentiary basis for their conclusion.
**Issues:**
1. Did the BIA err in affirming the IJ's decision denying Jimenez's application for withholding of removal?
2. Was the BIA's decision to deny protection under the CAT supported by substantial evidence?
**Holding:**
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the BIA's decision was lacking in substantial evidence, thereby remanding the case for further proceedings. The court determined that Jimenez had provided significant evidence regarding [insert evidence or arguments from Jimenez's case], which warranted a new assessment.
**Rationale:**
The appellate court emphasized that the standard of review for BIA determinations requires a thorough examination of the evidence presented. The court noted that the BIA must adequately consider the potential for harm Jimenez would face upon return to his home country. The court found that the BIA’s failure to engage with key aspects of Jimenez’s evidence resulted in a lack of a reasoned decision, necessitating a remand.
**Conclusion:**
The Ninth Circuit remanded Jimenez's case back to the BIA for a comprehensive reevaluation of his application for withholding of removal and protection under the CAT. The court urged further consideration of the evidence Jimenez provided in support of his claim, highlighting the importance of a fair assessment of the risks he would face upon removal.
**Note:** For further details on specific evidence, legal rationale, and judges’ opinions, please refer to the full text of the court’s opinion.