Metropolitan News-Enterprise


Monday, January 29, 2024


Page 3


Ninth Circuit Changes Name of Appellant to ‘Doe’; Opinion Was Already Released With True Name


By a MetNews Staff Writer


The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday reissued an opinion that was filed on Jan. 11 which identified the appellant by his actual name, this time denominating him “John Doe.”

The opinion, which denies relief from deportation to Mexico is unchanged, other than to accord anonymity to Sergio Marez-Gallegos by changing all references to him. An accompanying order says:

“ On January 18, 2024, following the original issuance of this memorandum disposition, Petitioner moved to amend the caption of this case to remove Petitioner’s real name. According to Petitioner, public disclosure of his real name could expose him to harm upon his removal to Mexico. The panel amends the memorandum and its associated caption to remove all references to Petitioner’s real name.”

In denying review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding a deportation order, a three-judge panel said in its Jan. 11 memorandum opinion that Marez-Gallegos failed to show error on the part of the BIA in denying relief under the Convention Against Torture. The judges declared:

“…Marez-Gallegos merely summarizes the BIA’s decision, recapitulates parts of his own testimony and subsequent arguments before the BIA, and states a conclusion that the BIA’s determination is in error. This series of assertions—which lacks any explanation of how the BIA specifically erred in rejecting Marez-Gallegos’s presentation of a particularized risk of torture by members of the Jalisco cartel or their associates—can be no basis for disturbing the BIA’s determination.”

The panel—comprised of Judges Mark J. Bennett and Morgan Christen, joined by U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Gary S. Katzmann, sitting by designation, added:

“[M]uch as Marez-Gallegos might disagree with the BIA’s assignment of weight to certain ‘underlying facts,’ that disagreement does not amount to an argument that the BIA applied the wrong legal standard altogether.”

The case now bears the caption, Doe v. Garland, 22-1824.


Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company