Juan Gonzalez-Flores v. Eric Holder, Jr.

575 F. App'x 731
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 23, 2014
Docket11-73158
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 575 F. App'x 731 (Juan Gonzalez-Flores 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
Juan Gonzalez-Flores v. Eric Holder, Jr., 575 F. App'x 731 (9th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Carlos Adolfo Palencia, 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 (“IJ”) 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. We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and remand.

In his opening brief, Palencia failed to raise any substantive challenge to either the agency’s dispositive determination that his asylum claim was time-barred, or to the agency’s denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).

In denying Palencia’s withholding of removal claim, the BIA found Palencia 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 either this court’s decisions in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.2013) (en banc), and Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir.2013), 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). Accordingly, we remand Palencia’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).

The parties 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

Related

Aguilar-Aguilar v. Lynch
620 F. App'x 528 (Sixth Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
575 F. App'x 731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juan-gonzalez-flores-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2014.