Case Name: Merida Esperanza HERNANDEZ, a.k.a. Senaida Hernandez Lopez; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-17
Citations: 563 F. App'x 552
Docket Number: No. 09-72718
Parties: Merida Esperanza HERNANDEZ, a.k.a. Senaida Hernandez Lopez; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 563
Pages: 552–553

Head Matter:
Merida Esperanza HERNANDEZ, a.k.a. Senaida Hernandez Lopez; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-72718.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2014.
Filed March 17, 2014.
Merida Esperanza Hernandez, pro se.
J. Oscar Shaw, Esquire, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioners.
Regina Byrd, Esquire, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, 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
Merida Esperanza Hernandez and her sons, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying their applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 665 (9th Cir.2010). We grant the petition for review and we remand.
Petitioners claim past persecution and a fear of future persecution on account of Merida Hernandez's membership in a particular social group of uneducated impoverished Guatemalan women. The IJ rejected petitioners' proposed social group because it represented a "large segment" of the Guatemalan population. In light of our intervening decision in Perdomo, 611 F.3d 662, 669, we grant petitioners' petition for review and remand their asylum and withholding of removal claims for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam). In light of our remand, we do not reach petitioners' arguments in their motion to remand.
Finally, we grant petitioners' motion for stay of removal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.