Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0345-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jackson Castaneda PENATE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72843.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
    
    Filed Oct. 6, 2014.
    Shara Svendsen, Law Office of Shara Svendsen, PLLC, Snohomish, WA, for Petitioner.
    Catherine B. Bye, 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: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for' decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jackson Castaneda Penate, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Tapia Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir.2013). We grant the petition for review and remand.

In denying Castaneda Penate’s withholding of removal claim, the agency found Castaneda Penate failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution on account of 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), and Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir.2014), 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). Thus, we remand Castaneda Penate’s withholding of removal claim to determine the impact, if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 587 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

Further, substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s finding that the police provided Castaneda Penate with protection in the last few years. The record indicates the police beat him, threatened to kill him, and did not provide him with protection after he was released from the hospital. Thus, we also remand Castaneda Penate’s CAT claim for further proceedings. See Ventura, 537 U.S. at 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353.

In light of our remand, we do not reach Castaneda Penate’s remaining contentions.

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.