N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JOSE SANTOS C R

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

e sponde n t . No. 09-71655 Age n c y No. A094-227-957 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

M ay 10, 2013 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON a

nd FISHER , C irc uit Judge s a nd DANIEL, *** Se nior Distric t Judge . Jose Santos C ruz , a

native and c itiz e n of El Sa lva dor, pe titions for re vie w of a de c ision of theB oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) a ffirm i ng a n im m i gration 

# FIL ED AUG 24 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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). *** The Honora

ble W ile y Y. Da n ie l , Se nior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for C olora do, sitting by de signa tion.judge ’ s (IJ) de c ision finding Cruz ina dm i ssible a s c ha rge d a nd sta tutorily ine ligible for NAC AR

A“ s pe c ia l-rule ” c anc e lla

t ion of re m ova l, a s y l um , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture (C AT). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we gran t the pe tition a s to C ruz ’ s withholding c l a im

and de ny a s to a ll re m a ining c la i m s. 1. NAC A R

A spe c ia l -rule c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l a

n d a sy lum C ruz wa s c o nvic te d of re c e ipt of stolen prope rty , in viola

t ion of C a l . Pe na l C ode § 496.1, 1 for whic h he wa s se nte nc e d to one y e ar’ s inc arc e ra tion. C ruz ’ s c onvic tion qua lifie s a s a

n a ggravate d fe lony . 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a)(43)(G); Ve rdugoGonzale z v . Holde r , 581 F.3d 1059, 1060-61 (9th C ir. 2009). He is the re fore ine l igible for spe c ia l-rule c anc e lla tion of re m ova l an d a sy lum . 8 C .F.R . § 1240.61(b); 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(2)(B )(i). That C ruz ’ s c onvic tion wa s subse q ue ntly re duc e d

to a m i sde m e anor doe s not a ffe c t the im m igration c onse q ue nc e s of the c onvic tion. C e ron v . Holde r , 747 F.3d 773, 777 (9th C ir. 2014) (e n ba

nc ) (e xpla ining c la ssific ation a s fe lony or m isde m e anor wa s irre le va nt whe re the m axim

um punishm e n t for the m isde m e anor offe nse wa s one y e ar). 2. W ithholding of rem ova l To qua lify

for withholding of rem ova l, a n a pplic ant m

ust show tha

t

1 Now C a l. Pe na l C ode § 496(a ). 2his “ life or fre e dom would be thre ate ne d” if he is re turne d to his home la

nd, on a c c ount of ra c e , re ligion, na tiona lity , m e m

be rship in a

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group, or politic a l opinion. 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3)(A). B e fore the B IA, C ruz argue d tha t his sta tus a s a form e r m ilita

ry offic e r c onstitute d a

n im pute d politic a l opinion. Spe c ific a lly , he c onte nde d tha t his “ form e r m e m

be rship in theSa lva d oran m ilita ry c ould re a sona

bly c a use gove rnm e nt oppone nts to c la s sify him a s a pe rson posse s sing thepolitic a l opinion of the pa rty in powe r.” The B IA, howe ve r, fa ile d to a ddre ss C ruz ’ s im pute d politic a l opinion argum e nt. Inste a d, the B IA re je c te d a n a rgum e nt tha

t C ruz ne ve r m a d e , c onc luding tha

t form e r m ilita

ry se rvic e c ould not e sta

b l ish m e m

be rship in a

“ pa rtic ula r soc i a l group.” This is c a use for re m and for two re a sons. First, the a ge nc y ’ s une xpla ine d fa ilure to a ddre ss C ruz ’ s politic a l opinion c la im c om pe ls us to re m a nd the c a se so it m ay

provide a re a sone d e xpla

nation of its re

je c tion of this c la im . Se e

, e .g., Singh v . Gonzale

s , 416 F.3d 1015 (9th C ir. 2005); se e also N ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 986-87 (9th C i r. 2010) (noting our revie w is lim ite d to the a c t

ua l grounds re lie d upon by the B IA). Se c ond, the B IA e rre d in ana ly z ing the c la im

it did a d dre ss be c a

use form e r m ilita

ry se rvic e c an

e sta blish m e m b e rship in a

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group. Se e Tapia Madrigal, 716 F.3d a t 505 (c onc l uding tha

t pe titione r c ould pote ntia l ly e sta blish tha t his “ p e rse c ution wa s on 3the b a sis of his me m be rship in the

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group of ‘ form e r M e xic an a rm y soldie rs who pa

rtic ipate d in a

nti-drug a c t ivity ’ ” ); Ay ala v . Holde r , 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ [F] orm e r [m ilita ry ] offic e rs m ay

be m e m be rs of a c ogniz a ble soc i a l group.” ). Ac c ordingly , we gran t C ruz ’ s pe tition for re vie w on the w ithholding of rem ova l c la i m and re m and for the B IA to c onside r this c la im . 3. Prote c tion unde r C AT The pe titione r be a

rs the burde n of de m onstra ting tha t it is “m ore like ly

tha n not tha t he or she would betorture d if re m ove d to thepropose d c o untry of re m ova l.” 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2). C ruz ha s not offe re d a ny e v ide nc e , or a

ny m e aningful a

rgum e n t , tha

t he would fa c e torture upon re turn to El Sa lva dor, a nd we the re fore de ny

his pe tition for re vie wof this c la im . 4. Stre am lining W e re je c t C ruz ’ s stre a

m lining c l a im . He ha s not shown tha t the B IA stre am line d his c a s e , a

nd in a ny e ve nt, we hav e long he ld tha t the B IA’ s stre am lining proc e dure s do not viola te a nonc itiz e n’ s due proc e ss rights. Se e Falc on C arric hev . Ashc roft , 350 F.3d 845, 850-54 (9th C ir. 2003).

4G RANT E D IN PART , DE NIE D IN PART , and RE M ANDE D. 2 E ac h

par ty shall be a r its ow n c osts on appe al.

2 W e are c onc e rne d

a b out the a ppa re nt ine ffe c tive ne ss of C ruz ’ s c ounse l. Organiz ations suc h a s the following may be a ble to providepro bono le ga l c ounse l: The C e ntra l Am e ric an R e sourc e C e nte r (C AREC EN), (213) 385-7800, 2845 We st 7th Stre e t, Los Ange l e s, C A 90005, www.c are c e n-la .org; Le g a l Aid Founda tion of Los Ange le s (LAFLA), (800) 399-4529, 5228 W hittie r B lvd., Los Ange le s, C A 90022, www.la fla .org. 5