Noe Peres Fuentes v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Noe Peres Fuentes v. Eric Holder, Jr.

584 F. App'x 902

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 3, 2014

Docket09-71876

StatusUnpublished

This text of 584 F. App'x 902 (Noe Peres Fuentes 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

Noe Peres Fuentes v. Eric Holder, Jr., 584 F. App'x 902 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Noe Peres Fuentes, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se 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 review for substantial evidence factual findings. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.2008). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Peres Fuentes failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured at the instigation of or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See id. at 1073.

In denying Peres Fuentes’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the agency found Peres Fuentes 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 *903 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 Peres Fuentes’s asylum and withholding of removal 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 this remand, we do not reach Peres Fuentes’s remaining challenges to the agency’s denial of his asylum and withholding of removal claims at this time.

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Noe Peres Fuentes, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se 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 review for substantial evidence factual findings. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.2008). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Peres Fuentes failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured at the instigation of or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See id. at 1073.

In denying Peres Fuentes’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the agency found Peres Fuentes 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 *903 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 Peres Fuentes’s asylum and withholding of removal 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 this remand, we do not reach Peres Fuentes’s remaining challenges to the agency’s denial of his asylum and withholding of removal claims at this time.

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

584 F. App'x 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noe-peres-fuentes-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack