Jaiderman Ramon DIAZ DE LEON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-70903
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 6, 2012.* Filed Oct. 19, 2012.
496 F. App‘x 674
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Saad Ahmad, Fremont, CA, for Pettitoner. Tiffany L. Walters, Trial, DOJ—U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office Of The Chief Counsel Department Of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Jaiderman Ramon Diaz de Leon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Diaz de Leon failed to establish that he was or would be persecuted on account of any protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (petitioner who refused to join guerrillas did not establish they would persecute him because of his political opinion rather than because of his refusal to fight with them); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[a]n alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Accordingly, Diaz de Leon’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Lynnetta ELLISON, on behalf of herself and a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AUTOZONE INC., a Nevada Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-56569
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 9, 2012. Filed Oct. 19, 2012.
496 F. App‘x 674
Before: TROTT, KLEINFELD, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Morris Nazarian, Law Office of Morris Nazarian, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Michael Hoffman, Arena Hoffman LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
AutoZone, Inc. appeals the order of the district court remanding the case to state court. The remand order was issued sua sponte after Ellison had dismissed her only remaining class claim, leaving just an individual claim before the court. We reverse.
We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”).
Ellison filed class and individual claims against Autozone in state court, and Autozone removed the action to federal court under CAFA. All but one of Ellison’s class claims were severed and transferred to another forum, and Ellison dismissed her only remaining claim, insofar as it was on behalf of a class, voluntarily. This left before the district court a single claim on behalf of Ellison as an individual. The district court sua sponte remanded the case to state court for lack of jurisdiction.
Where, as here, jurisdiction was proper at the time of removal, subsequent dismissal or transfer of class claims does not defeat the court’s CAFA jurisdiction over remaining individual claims. United Steel, 602 F.3d at 1092. The district court therefore erred in remanding the case for lack of jurisdiction. Had the court ordered the parties to show cause why this case should not be remanded, it doubtless would have elicited the authorities which showed that the court was not deprived of jurisdiction. We therefore vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We need not and do not decide any other issues urged by the parties.
REVERSED and REMANDED.