Norma Xiloj-Chan v. Loretta Lynch
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A206-488-577 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-1782]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
NORMA ELIZABETH XILOJ-CHAN,
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: October 17, 2017
Decided: November 3, 2017
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and Raymond A. JACKSON,
United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anita Sinha, Director, Anupama Selvam, Daniel Gestal, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN
RIGHTS LAW CLINIC, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Victor M.
Lawrence, Senior Litigation Counsel, Lisa M. Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office
of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Norma Elizabeth Xiloj-Chan, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s decision granting her relief in withholding-only removal proceedings.
Xiloj-Chan argues that the reinstated order of removal does not bar her from also applying
for asylum relief. In Mejia v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 573, 576, 584 (4th Cir. 2017), this Court
held that the reinstatement provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) (2012), clearly precludes an
alien subject to a reinstated order of removal from applying for asylum. Because XilojChan was subject to a reinstated order of removal, she was statutorily ineligible for asylum
relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?