NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PRESENTACION LOPEZ

- ALVARENGA, AKA Roberto Lopez,

Petitioner,

v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent. No. 19

- 70770
Agency No. A092

- 168

- 337

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 7, 2020 * *

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Presentacion Lopez

- Alvarenga , a native and citizen of El Salvador , petitions

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his

request to remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
decision denying his application for asylum, wi thholding of removal, and relief

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

APR 15 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 70770 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. O ur jurisdiction is governed by 8

U.S.C. § 1252. We “ review for abuse of discretion whether the BIA clearly
departs from its own standards

. ” Mejia v. Sessions , 868 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir.

2017). We dismiss in part and grant in part the petition for review
, and we remand.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Lopez

- Alvarenga’s contention regarding his
custody status in the context of an appeal of removal proceedings. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.19(d).
To the BIA, Lopez

- Alvarenga argued that he was unable to represent

himself before the IJ and that he should have been award ed counsel under Franco

Gonzalez v. Holder , No. CV

- 10

- 02211 DMG (DTBx), 2014 WL 5475097 (C.D.

Cal. Oct. 29, 2014). T he BIA abused its discretion in declining to remand because

it failed to follow its own precedent. See Calderon

- Rodriguez v.

Sessions
, 878 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2018) ( “Under Matter of M

- A

- M

- , if there

are indicia of incompetence

. . . the Immigration Judge must make further inquiry

to determine whether the alien is competent for purposes of immigration
proceedings.” (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)); Mejia , 868 F.3d at

1121

- 22 (holding the BIA abused its discretion by f ailing to explain why it allowed
the IJ to disregard rigorous procedural requirements that require, if an applicant
shows an indicia of incompetency, the IJ to determine whether the applicant is

competent and to articulate the reasoning for that determinat ion )

. Thus, we grant3 19

- 70770 the petition for review and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent
with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 16

- 18 (2002) (per curiam).
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Lopez

- Alvarenga’s remaining
contentions regarding the agency’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under CAT

. Lopez

- Alvarenga’s motion to stay his removal (Docket Entry No. 1) is

denied as moot.
The government must bear the costs for this petition for re view.

P ETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; GRANTED in part ;

REMANDED.