Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

asylum
statuteasylum

Related Cases

Gomez-Rivera v. Sessions
View Case »
Yu An Li v. Holder
View Case »
Aguilar-De Guillen v. Sessions
View Case »
Amanullah v. Cobb
View Case »
Owino v. Holder
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lara-Aguilar v. Sessions

Facts

In the fall of 2013, Francisco Lara-Aguilar was caught while attempting to enter the United States illegally and subsequently removed. After returning unlawfully in February 2014, he was apprehended again, and the Department of Homeland Security reinstated his prior order of removal. During this process, Lara-Aguilar expressed a fear of political persecution in El Salvador, leading to a reasonable fear interview where he was found credible regarding past persecution due to his political activities.

Lara-Aguilar is a native and citizen of El Salvador. In September 2013, he unlawfully entered the United States without inspection near Laredo, Texas. Lara-Aguilar was apprehended and placed in expedited removal proceedings; he did not express a fear of returning to El Salvador at that time and he did not apply for asylum. In November 2013, Lara-Aguilar was removed to El Salvador pursuant to an Order of Expedited Removal. In February 2014, approximately three months after having been removed, Lara-Aguilar returned and once again unlawfully crossed into the United States without inspection.

Issue

Whether an alien subject to a reinstated order of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(5) is eligible to apply for asylum under 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(D).

Whether an alien subject to a reinstated order of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(5) is eligible to apply for asylum under 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(D).

Rule

An alien subject to a reinstated order of removal is not eligible to apply for asylum, as established in Mejia v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 573 (4th Cir. 2017).

This court recently held that an alien subject to a reinstated order of removal may not apply for asylum. See Mejia v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 573, 584 (4th Cir. 2017).

Analysis

The court applied the rule from Mejia, determining that Lara-Aguilar's argument regarding 'changed circumstances' did not exempt him from the reinstatement bar. The court found that the statutory language was clear and unambiguous, indicating that individuals with reinstated removal orders cannot seek asylum, regardless of when the basis for their asylum claim arose.

As explained below, we cannot subscribe to Lara-Aguilar's position, which is inconsistent with both the statute and Mejia. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

Conclusion

The court denied Lara-Aguilar's petition for review, affirming that he was ineligible for asylum due to the reinstated order of removal.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the BIA's decision that Lara-Aguilar was ineligible for asylum based on the reinstatement of his removal order.

The government prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the BIA's decision that Lara-Aguilar was ineligible for asylum based on the reinstatement of his removal order.

You must be