Case ID: f-appx_563/html/0557-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Estuardo VELASQUEZ-PASOS, a.k.a. Armando Diaz Pazos; Carla Lopez-Garcia, a.k.a. Suni Salguero, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-73066.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2014.
    
    Filed March 17, 2014.
    Estuardo Velasquez-Pasos, Encino, CA, pro se.
    Carla Lopez-Garcia, Encino, CA, pro se.
    John Beadle Holt, Esquire, OIL, Don George Seroggin, Esquire, Blair O’Connor, Assistant Director, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Estuardo Velasquez-Pasos and Carla Lopez-Garcia, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to reconsider. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005), and de novo questions of law, Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106, 1113 (9th Cir.2013). We grant the petition for review and remand.

In denying petitioners’ motion to reconsider, the BIA determined that “landowners in Guatemala” is not cognizable as a particular social group. In light of our decision in Cordoba, 726 F.3d 1106, 1114 (recognizing landownership may form the basis of a particular social group), 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.