Case ID: f-appx_575/html/0807-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sandra Margarita AMAYA-PALACIOS; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-71513.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 28, 2014.
    Angela Dunning, Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Petitioners.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Glen T. Jaeger, OIL, Daniel I. Smulow, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sandra Margarita Amaya-Palaeios, and her sons, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order sustaining respondent’s appeal from an immigration judge’s decision granting their application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.

In denying petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims, the BIA found petitioners failed to establish a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground. When the BIA issued its decision, it did not have the benefit of either this court’s decisions in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir.2013) (en banc) (recognizing witnesses who testify against gang members may constitute a particular social group) and Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir.2013), 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 petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal 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 this remand, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining challenges to the BIA’s denial of asylum or withholding of removal at this time.

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.