Case ID: f-appx_387/html/0795-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Reina Isabel FUENTES-CHAVARRIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73374.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 29, 2010.
    
    Filed July 16, 2010.
    Jayne Elizabeth Fleming, Esquire, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, William Charles Peachey, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, and we therefore deny Fuentes-Chavarria’s request for oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Reina Isabel Fuentes-Chavarria, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review.

The IJ found that petitioner demonstrated that she was a member of a particular social group consisting of her husband’s family. But, the IJ also found that petitioner failed to establish persecution on account of a protected ground because she did not demonstrate that she and the other members of her husband’s family had a “shared, immutable characteristic.” Because the IJ’s two findings appear incompatible, we remand for clarification. See Recinos De Leon v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 1185, 1194 (9th Cir.2005) (remanding because “[w]e will not guess at the theory underlying the IJ’s ... opinion”) (internal quotations omitted).

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.