N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ANGEL M ONTES M AR TINEZ, AKA Ange l M artine z , AKA Ange l M onte s, AKA M arc e lo M o nte s , AKA M arc e l o M onte s M artine z , AKA Ange l M onte sM artine z , AKA Isidro M o n te s-M artine z , AKA M arc e lo M o nte s -M artine z , AKA Ange l M onte sm a

rtine z , Pe titione r,
v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 14-71406 Age n c y No. A029-655-930
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

June 22, 2015 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, GR AB ER , a nd W . FLETC H ER , C irc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED
JUL 01 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).Ange l M o nte s M artine z , a native an d c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B o ard of Im

m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism i ssing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his a pplic a t ion for withholding of re m ova l
and prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ). Our jurisdic tion is gove rne d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re v ie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c t ua l findings. Ze haty e v . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006). W e re vie wdue proc e ss c ha lle nge s de novo. Padilla-Martine z v . Holde r , 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th C ir. 2014). W e grant the pe tition for re vie w a nd re m and. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e doe s not support the a ge nc y ’ s c onc l usion tha t the ha rm e xpe rie nc e d by

M onte s M artine z an d his brothe r a s c h ildre n wa s the re sult of a priva te disputewith the ir pe rse c utor, a nd tha t the ir fam ilia l re lationship to the ir fa the r did not repre se nt one c e ntra l re a son for the atta c k s. Se e Singh v . Holde r , 764 F.3d 1153, 1160-62 (9th C ir. 2014); se e also Parussimov a v . Muk ase y , 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th C ir. 2009) (“ a m otive is a

‘ c e ntra l re a son’ if the pe rse c utor would not have ha rm e d the a

pplic ant if suc h m otive did not e xist” ). In a ddition, substa

ntia l e vide nc e doe s not support the B IA’ s finding tha

t M onte s M artine z fa ile d

to e sta blish ha rm by an individual the M e xic an gove rnm e nt is unwilling or una ble to c o ntrol. Se e Doev . Holde r , 736 F.3d 871, 878-89 (9th C ir. 2013) (pe titione r’ s e vide nc e tha t the polic e re

je c te d one c om

pla int

1 4
- 7 1 4 0 6 2and quic k ly

dism isse d a

se c ond c om

pla int a ga inst na

m e d atta c ke rs c om

pe lle d the
c onc lusion tha

t the gove rnm e nt wa s unwilling or una ble to prote c t him

from priva te atta c ks). Thus, we grant the pe tition for re vie w a nd re m and M onte s M artine z ’ s withholding of rem o v a l a nd C AT c la im s for furthe r proc e e dings c onsiste nt with this disposition. Se e IN

S v . Ve n tura , 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (pe r c uriam ) ; se e also Afiy iev . Holde r , 613 F.3d 924, 937 (9th C ir. 2010) (re m anding C AT c la im in light of e rrors ide ntifie d in a ge nc y ’ s “ una ble or unwilling”

ana l y sis a

nd e v i de nc e of gove rnm e nt a

w are n e ss of da

nge r to pe titione r). W e de c line to a ddre ss, a s m oot, M onte s M artine z ’ s c onte ntion tha t the B IA’ s de nia l of his C AT c la im viola te d due proc e s s. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WG RANT E D; RE M ANDE D .

1 4
- 7 1 4 0 6 3