John Umale v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

John Umale v. Eric Holder, Jr.

585 F. App'x 478

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 20, 2014

Docket11-74016

StatusUnpublished

This text of 585 F. App'x 478 (John Umale 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

John Umale v. Eric Holder, Jr., 585 F. App'x 478 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Servelio Alcides Membreno Mejia, a native and citizen of Honduras, 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 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 deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Membreno Mejia failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government of Honduras. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008); Singh v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 435, 443 (9th Cir.2003) (petitioner could avoid torture through relocation). Membreno Mejia’s contention that the agency failed to consider the expert report is not supported by the record.

In denying Membreno Mejia’s withholding of removal claim, the agency found Membreno Mejia failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution 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 Membreno Mejia’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 their 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.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Servelio Alcides Membreno Mejia, a native and citizen of Honduras, 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 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 deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Membreno Mejia failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government of Honduras. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008); Singh v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 435, 443 (9th Cir.2003) (petitioner could avoid torture through relocation). Membreno Mejia’s contention that the agency failed to consider the expert report is not supported by the record.

In denying Membreno Mejia’s withholding of removal claim, the agency found Membreno Mejia failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution 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 Membreno Mejia’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 their 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

585 F. App'x 478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-umale-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack