Rodas v. Holder

Ninth Circuit

Rodas v. Holder

472 F. App'x 636

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 2, 2012

Docket09-71524

StatusUnpublished

This text of 472 F. App'x 636 (Rodas v. Holder) 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

Rodas v. Holder, 472 F. App'x 636 (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

*637 MEMORANDUM **

Maria E. Rodas, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008). We grant the petition for review and remand.

Rodas claims she is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on membership in a particular social group of women in Guatemala who are the victims of domestic violence. The IJ rejected Rodas’ social group before the Attorney General’s decision in Matter of R-A- 24 I. & N. Dec. 629 (BIA 2008) (lifting stay and remanding petitioner’s claims based on domestic violence for further proceedings), and the BIA did not address Matter of RA- in its decision. In light of the Attorney General’s decision in Matter of R-A-, and in light of our intervening decision in Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 669 (9th Cir.2010) (remanding for the agency to determine “whether women in Guatemala constitute a particular social group, and, if so, whether [petitioner] has demonstrated a fear of persecution” on account of her membership in a protected group), we grant Rodas’ petition for review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; 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

*637 MEMORANDUM **

Maria E. Rodas, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008). We grant the petition for review and remand.

Rodas claims she is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on membership in a particular social group of women in Guatemala who are the victims of domestic violence. The IJ rejected Rodas’ social group before the Attorney General’s decision in Matter of R-A- 24 I. & N. Dec. 629 (BIA 2008) (lifting stay and remanding petitioner’s claims based on domestic violence for further proceedings), and the BIA did not address Matter of RA- in its decision. In light of the Attorney General’s decision in Matter of R-A-, and in light of our intervening decision in Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 669 (9th Cir.2010) (remanding for the agency to determine “whether women in Guatemala constitute a particular social group, and, if so, whether [petitioner] has demonstrated a fear of persecution” on account of her membership in a protected group), we grant Rodas’ petition for review and remand for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

472 F. App'x 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodas-v-holder-ca9-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack