Gloria Tejada v. Jefferson Sessions

Ninth Circuit

Gloria Tejada v. Jefferson Sessions

691 F. App'x 493

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 30, 2017

Docket10-73628

StatusUnpublished

This text of 691 F. App'x 493 (Gloria Tejada v. Jefferson Sessions) 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

Gloria Tejada v. Jefferson Sessions, 691 F. App'x 493 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

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.

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

691 F. App'x 493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gloria-tejada-v-jefferson-sessions-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack