Case Name: Adan De Jesus MUNOZ-HENRIQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-16
Citations: 578 F. App'x 732
Docket Number: No. 10-71822
Parties: Adan De Jesus MUNOZ-HENRIQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 578
Pages: 732–733

Head Matter:
Adan De Jesus MUNOZ-HENRIQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-71822.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 12, 2014.
Filed June 16, 2014.
Adán De Jesus Munoz-Henriquez, Richmond, CA, pro se.
OIL, Yanal H. Yousef, Trial, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, 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
Adán de Jesus Munoz-Henriquez, 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 withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.
In denying Munoz-Henriquez's withholding of removal claim, the BIA found Munoz-Henriquez failed to articulate a cognizable particular social group. When the IJ and BIA issued their decisions in this case they did not have the benefit of either this court's decisions in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.2013) (en banc), and Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir.2013), 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). In light of these intervening decisions, we grant Munoz-Henriquez's petition for review and remand 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).
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.