Case Name: Mallola Esperanza OSORIO-MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-01
Citations: 584 F. App'x 855
Docket Number: No. 10-73737
Parties: Mallola Esperanza OSORIO-MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and'CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 855–856

Head Matter:
Mallola Esperanza OSORIO-MENDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73737.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 23, 2014.
Filed Oct. 1, 2014.
Areg Kazaryan, Law Offices of Areg Kazaryan, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.
Andrea Gevas, OIL, 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: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and'CHRISTEN, 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
Mallola Esperanza Osorio-Mendez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal of an immigration judge's decision denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.
In denying Osorio-Mendez's motion to reopen, the BIA, inter alia, found Osorio-Mendez failed to establish she would be harmed on account of a protected ground. When the BIA issued its decision, it did not have the benefit of this court's decisions in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1088 (9th Cir.2013) (en banc) (recognizing witnesses who testify against gang members may constitute a particular social group), Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir.2013), and Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir.2014), 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 for the agency to determine the impact, if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).
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.