FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 7 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YAQUELIN PATRICIA CATALAN- Nos. 19-72896 MATTA, 20-70188 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-771-449 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted November 20, 2020 Phoenix, Arizona Before: BYBEE, MURGUIA, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Yaquelin Catalan-Matta de Ruiz (Catalan) petitions for review of a negative reasonable fear determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(g) and a denial of a motion to reopen that determination sua sponte. We have jurisdiction to review a reinstatement order under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we review “due * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. process claims and questions of law raised in immigration proceedings de novo.” Garcia de Rincon v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 539 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). We review factual findings underlying the reasonable fear determination for substantial evidence, meaning the immigration judge’s (IJ) conclusion must be upheld “unless, based on the evidence, ‘any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Ai Jun Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014)). We grant the petition in No. 19-72896 and remand for further fact-finding on an open record. 1. Substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s determination that Catalan failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution in Guatemala on account of a protected ground. The record here compels the conclusion that Catalan was targeted because of her pursuit of the investigations into her daughters’ murders by drug traffickers. Thus, Catalan has established a nexus to at least her proposed social group of “witnesses testifying against or otherwise opposing gang members.” See Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 506 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[I]f a retributory motive exists alongside a protected motive, an applicant need show only that a protected ground is ‘one central reason’ for [her] persecution.”); see also Ayala v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2017) 2 (stating that where petitioner “seeks only withholding of removal and not asylum, she need establish only that a protected characteristic was ‘a reason’ motivating” the persecution (citation omitted)). Catalan’s role as a protected witness in an ongoing investigation may be a protected ground under Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1086, 1092–93 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), which held that Salvadoran witnesses testifying against gang members in open court could constitute a particular social group under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101–1537. We remand to the agency for further consideration of the cognizability of Catalan’s proposed social groups. See Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183, 186–87 (2006) (per curiam) (“[T]he proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.” (citation omitted)). 2. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals