Case Name: Daniel RODRIGUEZ-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-26
Citations: 632 F. App'x 391
Docket Number: No. 14-73867
Parties: Daniel RODRIGUEZ-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 632
Pages: 391–392

Head Matter:
Daniel RODRIGUEZ-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 14-73867.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
Filed Jan. 26, 2016.
Rose M. Mukhar, Law Office of Rose Mukhar, San Carlos, CA, for Petitioner.
Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, OIL, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, 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
Daniel Rodriguez-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("U") decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 411 (9th Cir.2009). We grant the petition for review, and we remand.
In affirming the IJ's denial of relief, the BIA did not address past persecution. See Brezilien, 569 F.3d at 412. Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand Rodriguez-Sanehez's withholding of removal and CAT claims to the agency 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 disposition, we do not reach Rodriguez-Sanchez's other contentions.
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,