NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 9 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GERARDO SOLORIO MEJIA, AKA No. 17-71299 Gerardo Solorio Torres; et al., Agency Nos. A078-756-910 Petitioners, A205-528-926 A205-528-927 v. A205-528-928 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted October 7, 2020 Portland, Oregon Before: PAEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON,** District Judge. Partial Dissent by Judge RAWLINSON Petitioners Gerardo Solorio Mejia (“Solorio Mejia”), Adriana Tinajero Hurtado, Wendi Guadalupe Solorio Tinajero, and Leiririana Solorio Tinajero * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. (collectively “Petitioners”)1 petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA” or “Board”) decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition in part, deny it in part, dismiss it in part, and remand for further proceedings. We review factual findings for substantial evidence and “uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran- Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We review de novo questions of law. Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir. 2013). Failure of the agency to address a claim “constitutes error and requires remand.” Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1126 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (“IJs and the BIA are not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.”); Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771–72 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[W]here there is any indication that the BIA did not consider all of the evidence before it, a catchall phrase does not suffice, and the decision cannot stand.”). 1. The IJ and BIA erred in this case by failing to address the record evidence and arguments regarding Solorio Mejia’s fear of harm on account of an imputed political opinion. A petitioner can establish eligibility for asylum and withholding 1 Gerardo Solorio Mejia is the lead petitioner. His spouse, Adriana Tinajero Hurtado, and children are derivative beneficiaries in his applications for relief. 2 of removal by showing that he fears persecution on account of an imputed political opinion. Singh v. Holder, 764 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014). Here, Solorio Mejia presented evidence that he was targeted on this basis, and he argued the issue before the IJ and BIA. Soloria Mejia first raised this claim in his pre-hearing statement, where he specifically argued that “[i]mputed political opinion can exist no matter what the applicant’s actual opinion may be,” and described how an anti-cartel viewpoint may have been imputed to him based on his actions and the notoriety of his family. He then testified that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals