ASCENCIO v. GARLAND

Holding that an appeal to the BIA does not divest the IJ of jurisdiction if the IJ merely issued a summary order denying asylum rather than an appealable decision. In addition, even if the BIA erred in resolving the issue without remanding the case to the IJ for a new decision, this decision was harmless because there is no reason to believe the IJ would change his decision denying relief and the BIA properly certified the case for appeal. Further, the IJ was justified in relying on Petitioner's concessions on removability and the facts necessary to sustain removability. Finally, the Court upheld the agency's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, rejecting Petitioner's argument that the IJ denied asylum and withholding solely based on adverse credibility and the BIA denied CAT relief based only on ability to relocate.

Date of Decision
Unpublished