Cruz-Pablo v. Lynch

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Cruz-Pablo v. Lynch, 623 F. App'x 434 (9th Cir. 2015)

Cruz-Pablo v. Lynch

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Florindo Cruz-Pablo, 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 (“U”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. *435We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Cruz-Pablo does not raise any arguments challenging the agency’s denial of his asylum or CAT claims. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”). Thus, we deny the petition as to these claims. .

With respect to withholding of removal, the agency found Cruz-Pablo failed to demonstrate the harm he fears is on account of 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 Cruz-Pablo’s withholding of removal claim 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).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Reference

Full Case Name
Florindo CRUZ-PABLO v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General
Status
Published