N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT EDGAR ENRIQUE PENA-R ODR IGUEZ, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 11-73171 Age n c y No. A098-980-511 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

April 7, 2015 * * B e fore : FISHER , TALLM AN, a nd NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Edga r Enrique Pe na -R odrigue z , a native and c itiz e n of El Sa lva dor, pe titions for re vie w of the B o a

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his a pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, a n d prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Against



# FIL ED APR 13 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Torture (“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for

substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings. Silay a v . Muk ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th C ir. 2008). W e grant the pe tition for re vie w, a nd we re m and. In de ny ing Pe na -R odrigue z ’ s a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l c la im s, the a ge nc y found Pe na -R odrigue z fa ile d to e sta blish pa st pe rse c ution or a fe ar of future pe rse c ution on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground. W

he n the IJ a

nd B IA issue d the ir de c isions in this c a se , the y did not ha

ve the be ne fit of this c ourt’ s de c isions in He nrique z-Riv as v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1081 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ), C ordoba v . Holde r , 726 F.3d 1106 (9th C ir. 2013), a n d Pirir-Boc v . Holde r , 750 F.3d 1077 (9th C ir. 2014), or theB IA’ s de c isions in Matte r of M-E-V-G- , 26 I. & N. De c . 227 (B IA 2014), a

nd Matte r of W

-G-R- , 26 I. & N. De c . 208 (B IA 2014). Furthe r, the B IA’ s ba sis for re

je c ting Pe na -R odrigue z ’ s fam ily -ba se d soc ia l group c la i m is unc le ar. Se e Azanor v . Ashc roft , 364 F.3d 1013, 1021 (9th C ir. 2004) (re m and is a ppropria te whe re ba sis for a g e nc y ’ s de c i sion is unc le ar). Thus, we re m and Pe na R odrigue z ’ s a sy lum

and withholding of re

m ova l c la im s to de te rm ine the im pa c t, if any , of the fore going de c isions. Se e IN S v . Ve ntura , 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (pe r c uriam ). In light of this re m and, we do not re a c h Pe na -R odrigue z ’ s re m a ining c ha lle nge s to thea ge nc y ’ s de nia l of his a sy lum an d withholding of re

m ova l c la im s at this time . 1 1 - 7 3 1 7 1 2Fina lly , with re spe c t to C AT re lie f, the B IA re je c te d Pe na -R odrigue z ’ s c la im without a na ly sis. Se e Madrigal v . Holde r , 716 F.3d 499, 509 (9th C ir. 2013) (e xpla ining theB IA re a c he d C AT c o nc lusion “ [w] ithout a na l y s is” and “ fa ile d to sta te with suffic i e nt pa

rtic ula rity and c la rity the re a s ons for this de c ision” ) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

n d c ita tion omitte d). Thus, were m and for the B IA to a na ly z e Pe na -R odrigue z ’ s C AT c la im in light of the fa c ts of his c a se . Se e Ve ntura , 537 U.S. at 16-18; Madrigal , 716 F.3d a t 509-10. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WG RANT E D; RE M ANDE D .

1 1 - 7 3 1 7 1 3