Court Opinion

ID: 2743921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-10-20 21:01:23.544907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:02.648010
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            OCT 20 2014

                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FEDERICO LOPEZ,                                  No. 10-70804

               Petitioner,                       Agency No. A098-761-845

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.

                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted October 14, 2014**

Before:        LEAVY, GOULD, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

       Federico Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for

review and we remand.

      In denying Lopez’s withholding of removal claim, the agency found Lopez

failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground. When the IJ and BIA issued their

decisions in this case they did not have the benefit of this court’s decisions in

Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), 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 Lopez’s withholding of removal claim to determine the impact, if any, of

these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam). In

light of this remand, we do not reach Lopez’s remaining challenges to the agency’s

denial of his withholding of removal claim at this time.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

                                        2                                           10-70804