Case ID: f-appx_473/html/0637-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Selvin Villeda MONROY, a.k.a. Selvin Armando Villeda-Monroy, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-73356.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2012.
    
    Filed May 22, 2012.
    Ian Silverberg, Esquire, Hardy Law Group, Reno, NV, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Seeurity, San Francisco, CA, Deitz P. Lefort, Trial, Lisa Morinelli, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Selvin Villeda Monroy, native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Afriyie v. Holder, 618 F.3d 924, 931 (9th Cir.2010). We grant the petition for review, and we remand.

The agency denied relief on the sole basis that Villeda Monroy failed to show the government was unwilling or unable to protect him. Substantial evidence does not support this finding in light of Villeda Monroy’s testimony regarding the murder of his grandparents, the murder of his father and the subsequent attack on Villeda Monroy by the same individuals. See id. at 931-32. Accordingly, we remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.