U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2017

Gloria Tejada v. Jefferson Sessions

Gloria Tejada v. Jefferson Sessions
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided May 30, 2017 · Thomas, Silverman, Rawlinson
691 F. App'x 493

Gloria Tejada v. Jefferson Sessions

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Pedro Antonio Chavez-Cruz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal, and reversing the IJ’s decision granting protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We grant the petition for review and we remand.

In denying Chavez-Cruz’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the agency found Chavez-Cruz 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), Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014), and Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016), 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 reversing the IJ’s grant of CAT protection, the BIA cited its decision in Matter of V-K-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 500 (BIA 2008), for its de novo standard of review of the IJ’s decision. In Matter of Z-Z-O-, 26 I. *494 & N. Dec. 586, 589-91 (BIA 2015), the BIA overruled Matter ofV-K- as to its standard of review of the IJ’s factual findings.

Thus, we remand Chavez-Cruz’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims 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).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Chavez-Cruz’s due process contentions at this time.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED: REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.