Case ID: f-appx_579/html/0527-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cesar CRUZ-MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-72644.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 12, 2014.
    
    Filed June 16, 2014.
    Audra Rose Behne, Law Office of Audra R. Behne A Professional Corporation, En-cino, CA, for Petitioner.
    Sabatino F. Leo, Trial, Suzanne Nar-done, Oil, 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: MeKEOWN, WARDLAW, 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

Cesar Cruz-Mendez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Delgado v. Holder, 568 F.3d 863, 874 (9th Cir.2009). We grant the petition for review, and remand.

In denying Cruz-Mendez’s CAT claim, the BIA erred in failing to discuss the country conditions evidence in the record. See Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 705 & n. 6 (9th Cir.2010) (“The government does not dispute that the BIA failed to mention the Country Report in its decision.”). Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand for the BIA to do, so in the first instance. 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.