NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 3 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GABRIEL BUSTOS PENALOZA, No. 18-71416 Petitioner, Agency No. A209-134-905 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 17, 2019** Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Gabriel Bustos Penaloza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We grant the petition for review and remand. Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s determination that Bustos Penaloza failed to establish he was or would be harmed on account of a protected ground in Mexico, including his actual or imputed political opinion. See Song v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 837, 841-43 (9th Cir. 2017) (record compelled finding that one central reason for petitioner’s mistreatment was his imputed political opinion); Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017) (“‘[A] reason’ is a less demanding standard than ‘one central reason.’”). Thus, we grant the petition for review as to Bustos Penaloza’s asylum and withholding of removal claims and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam). We do not reach Bustos Penaloza’s contention regarding whether the Mexican government is unwilling or unable to control his persecutors. See Recinos De Leon v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 1185, 1189 (9th Cir. 2005) (“We may affirm the [agency] only on grounds set forth in the opinion under review.”). The government shall bear the costs for this petition for review. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 2 18-71416 18-71416 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Gabriel Bustos Penaloza v. William Barr 3 May 2019 Agency Unpublished 9dbf1009b5a5c723771677cc3965119ac4ec04d0
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals