US. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Beard afImmig/'mian Appeal: 0[fice oflhe Clerk m7 ma 3m 2m Fall; Virginia 2200 GUTIERREZ SOTO, EMILIO DHSIICE Office of Chief Counsel ELP A077-491-780 11541 Montana Ave Suite 0 EL PASO PROCESSING CENTER El Paso, TX 79536 3515 MONTANA AVENUE EL PASO, TX 79925 Name: GUTIERREZ SOTO, EMILIO -- Dale of this notice: 5I15I2018 Enclosed is a copy of ii": Board's decision in the above-referenced case. This copy is being provided to you as a courtesy, Your anomey or leprescmaiive has been served with ihis decision pursuant to 8 If the atiaclied decision orders that you be removed from the United Staies or affirms an Immigraiion Judge's decision ordering ihat you be removed, any petition for i'eView of the attached decision must be filed with and received by the appropriate coun ofappeais within 30 days omic dale omie decision. Sincerely, DWI. CW Donna Carr Chief Clerk Enclasure Pa nel Members: Guendelsberger' John Useneam: '7 3 . Us. Department of Justice Decision ofthe Board oflmmigmtion Appeals Executive Office for Immigration Review Falls Church, Virginia 220" Files: .1 Paso, TX Date: MAY 5 5 me In re: Emilio GUTIERREZ SOTO Oscar GUTIERREZ SOTO IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS APPEAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: Eduardo Beckett, Esquire ON BEHALF OF DHS: Slephany Miranda Assistant Chief Counsel APPLICATION: Asylum; withholding of removal; Convention Against Torture The respondents have appealed' the Immigration Judge's decision of July 19, 2017, in which the Immigration Judge denied their application for asylum, withholding ofren-ioval, and protection under the Convention Against Torture The respondents also seek reopening based on additional evidence. The Department of Homeland Security opposes the appeal and the remand request, The motion to remand will be granted and the record remanded for further proceedings, The Immigration Judge found the lead respondent was not credible. based on inconsistencies and implausibilities in his testimony as well as the limited corroborative evidence submitted. The respondent and amici curiae have now submitted additional evidence addressing these concerns, much of which was allegedly previously unavailable to the respondent. While the Board does not ordinarily address evidence for the first time on appeal, we will remand for consideration of newly available, material evidence 8 C.FVR. Matter 0/ Coellm, 20 Dec. 464 (BIA 1992), Given the arguments and evidence proffered on appeal, we will remand this matter to permit the Immigration Judge to address this new evidence in the first instance and issue a new decision, ORDER: The maid is remanded to the Immigration Judge for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion and for the entry ofa new decision. GBP3011 THE BOARD The respondents' appeal was originally dismissed as untimely filed. The Board subsequently reopened and reinstated this appeal on December 22, 2017.