Case Summary
**Case Summary: Mateo Cortez-Pineda v. Eric H. Holder Jr.**
**Docket Number:** 7847606
**Court:** [Specify the Court - e.g., U.S. Court of Appeals]
**Date:** [Specify the Date of the Decision]
**Overview:**
This case involves Mateo Cortez-Pineda, the petitioner, against Eric H. Holder Jr., the then-Attorney General of the United States. The primary issue at hand concerns Cortez-Pineda’s immigration status and his claim for relief under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
**Facts:**
Mateo Cortez-Pineda, a citizen of [Specify Country], arrived in the United States and had been subject to removal proceedings. He sought relief from removal based on his claim for [specify relief sought, e.g., asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture]. The immigration judge (IJ) initially denied his claim, finding that he failed to meet the necessary criteria for the relief sought.
Cortez-Pineda's appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) was also denied. He subsequently petitioned for review of the BIA's decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals.
**Issues:**
1. Whether the BIA erred in affirming the IJ's decision to deny Cortez-Pineda's application for relief.
2. Whether Cortez-Pineda established eligibility for asylum or any other form of protection under the INA.
**Arguments:**
- **Petitioner (Cortez-Pineda):** Argued that the BIA failed to appropriately consider evidence of persecution if returned to his home country. He asserted that he met the legal standards for asylum based on [provide reasons like political opinion, fear of persecution, etc.].
- **Respondent (Holder):** Contended that the BIA's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that Cortez-Pineda did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution.
**Court's Analysis:**
The Court reviewed the administrative record, focusing on the findings of the IJ and the BIA's conclusions. It analyzed whether the evidence presented by Cortez-Pineda warranted relief under the standards set forth in the INA.
The Court likely examined the credibility of Cortez-Pineda's claims, the consistency of his testimony, and the overall context of the evidence related to his fear of persecution.
**Conclusion:**
The Court ultimately affirmed or reversed the BIA's decision based on [summarize the Court's decision]. If it ruled in favor of Cortez-Pineda, the court potentially remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing him an opportunity to present additional evidence or for the agency to reevaluate his claims.
**Significance:**
This case highlights the complexities involved in immigration law, particularly regarding claims for protection based on fears of persecution. It also underscores the critical role of both the IJ and BIA in evaluating such claims and the standards courts apply when reviewing those decisions.
[Note: Specific details regarding the outcome, the court's reasoning, and dates would need to be filled in based on actual case information available from court documents or legal databases.]