Case Name: Santos Anibal Ramirez PORTILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-29
Citations: 584 F. App'x 352
Docket Number: No. 09-70375
Parties: Santos Anibal Ramirez PORTILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 352–353

Head Matter:
Santos Anibal Ramirez PORTILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-70375.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2014.
Filed July 29, 2014.
Jonathan Myles Kaufman, Esquire, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Oil, Shahrzad Baghai, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, 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
Santos Aníbal Ramirez Portillo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.
In his Notice of Appeal, among other things, Ramirez Portillo argued the evidence did not support the IJ's finding that Ramirez Portillo conceded he was subject to removal as charged. In' denying his appeal, the BIA erred by not addressing this argument. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.Sd 1035, 1040 (9th Cir.2005) (the BIA is "not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner"). Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand the case 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 this remand, we do not reach Ramirez Portillo's remaining contentions at this time.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.