Case Name: Gloria Elizabeth TEJADA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-30
Citations: 691 F. App'x 468
Docket Number: No. 10-73628
Parties: Gloria Elizabeth TEJADA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 468–469

Head Matter:
Gloria Elizabeth TEJADA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73628
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2017
Filed May 30, 2017
Adriana Garrido, Esquire, Maziar Razi, Attorney, Law Offices of Mike Razi, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
Brooke Maurer, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Gloria Elizabeth Tejada, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her- appeal from an immigration judge's ("U") decision denying her application for asylum, and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.
As to the timeliness of Tejada's asylum application, the BIA did not consider Teja-da's contention based on her inclusion in her mother's asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5); Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) ("[T]he BIA is not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.").
Further, in denying Tejada's asylum and withholding of removal claims, the BIA found Tejada failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground. However, when the IJ and BIA issued their decisions in this case, they did not have the benefit of this court's decisions in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013), Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014), and Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016), 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 Tejada's asylum and withholding of removal claims to determine the impact, if any, of these decisions, and this court's decision in Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2010). See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam). On remand, the BIA should also address Tejada's contention regarding her reasons for not filing a timely asylum application.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.