Case ID: f-appx_691/html/0493-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pedro Antonio CHAVEZ-CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70960
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2017 
    
    Filed May 30, 2017
    David T. Acalin, Attorney, Marks & Acalin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    OIL, Timothy Bo Stanton, Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pedro Antonio Chavez-Cruz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal, and reversing the IJ’s decision granting protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We grant the petition for review and we remand.

In denying Chavez-Cruz’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the agency found Chavez-Cruz failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground. When the IJ and BIA issued their decisions in this case, they did not have the benefit of this court’s decisions in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013), Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014), and Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016), or the BIA’s decisions in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014).

In reversing the IJ’s grant of CAT protection, the BIA cited its decision in Matter of V-K-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 500 (BIA 2008), for its de novo standard of review of the IJ’s decision. In Matter of Z-Z-O-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 586, 589-91 (BIA 2015), the BIA overruled Matter ofV-K- as to its standard of review of the IJ’s factual findings.

Thus, we remand Chavez-Cruz’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims to determine the impact, if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Chavez-Cruz’s due process contentions at this time.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED: REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.