Eulalia Gaspar-Bartolo v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Eulalia Gaspar-Bartolo v. Eric Holder, Jr.

535 F. App'x 564

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 31, 2013

Docket11-71704

StatusUnpublished

This text of 535 F. App'x 564 (Eulalia Gaspar-Bartolo v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eulalia Gaspar-Bartolo v. Eric Holder, Jr., 535 F. App'x 564 (9th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Eulalia Gaspar-Bartolo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We grant the petition for review and remand.

In evaluating Gaspar-Bartolo’s claim of past persecution, the BIA found that the harm that she suffered did not rise to the level of persecution. However, in reaching this conclusion, the BIA did not have the benefit of our intervening decision in Mendoza-Pablo v. Holder, 667 F.3d 1308 (9th Cir.2012). Gaspar-Bartolo established that when she was a child, her father fled into exile and she, her mother, and her siblings were forced to abandon their home multiple times due to credible threats of abduction and death that they received from guerrillas. See id. at 1314 (“being forced to flee from one’s home in the face of an immediate threat of severe physical •violence or death is squarely encompassed within the rubric of persecution”); see also Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir.2007) (“injuries to a family must be considered in an asylum case where the events that form the basis of the past persecution claim were perceived when the petitioner was a child”). Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for further proceeding on Gaspar-Bartolo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Gaspar-Bartolo’s due process claim.

Gaspar-Bartolo does not raise any arguments regarding the denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Eulalia Gaspar-Bartolo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We grant the petition for review and remand.

In evaluating Gaspar-Bartolo’s claim of past persecution, the BIA found that the harm that she suffered did not rise to the level of persecution. However, in reaching this conclusion, the BIA did not have the benefit of our intervening decision in Mendoza-Pablo v. Holder, 667 F.3d 1308 (9th Cir.2012). Gaspar-Bartolo established that when she was a child, her father fled into exile and she, her mother, and her siblings were forced to abandon their home multiple times due to credible threats of abduction and death that they received from guerrillas. See id. at 1314 (“being forced to flee from one’s home in the face of an immediate threat of severe physical •violence or death is squarely encompassed within the rubric of persecution”); see also Hernandez-Ortiz v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir.2007) (“injuries to a family must be considered in an asylum case where the events that form the basis of the past persecution claim were perceived when the petitioner was a child”). Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for further proceeding on Gaspar-Bartolo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims.

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Gaspar-Bartolo’s due process claim.

Gaspar-Bartolo does not raise any arguments regarding the denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

535 F. App'x 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eulalia-gaspar-bartolo-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack